# problems with the bolter.



## CJay (Aug 25, 2010)

It is called a rifle, yet the gun seems snubbed as an SMG. Not to mention I am still waiting to see a 40k picture that has them firing from the sights and not from the hip.

I think I read their is like a link up display for their helmet from their bolter, but its still more accurate to put the butt to your shoulder. 

I have seen some pics where they do have like red dot sights and other scopes, and its in the fluff, but you can't help but go, your not really going to be able to hit shit with a gun without a shoulder brace and having a 12 inch barrel.


----------



## Barnster (Feb 11, 2010)

Why do marines need a brace? Power armour is quite solid, and designed to bear the brunt of the recoil

images often show scouts aiming from the shoulder

The bolt is travelling alot faster than 21st cent bullets as they have have a rocket source, this added speed would help to reduce deviation

But hey this is 40k you can't expect 100% accuracy


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

I know very little about guns (I've never even fired one), but I'll try my best to answer your questions.

The bolter's ammunition is a little different than typical guns. The bolt is a two-staged rocket. The first phase is just enough to get the bolt out of the barrel and travel a bit, then the second phase kicks in for the real speed. The bolter doesn't need a long barrel as the final ignition doesn't occur until the bolt has already left the barrel.

This can also explain why they fire from the hip. The initial kicker charge doesn't have much power and therefore little recoil. They can fire from the hip and not worry about it messing their aim.

Plus they're 7 1/2 foot superhumans wearing power armor, too. That could probably help reduce the recoil.


----------



## spanner94ezekiel (Jan 6, 2011)

I believe there are some models like that, such as the sternguard. Then again, Astartes don't really have to aim so much because the enemy tends to be right in their face for most of the time. Plus, seeing as they are firing rocket propelled rounds, and aiming (for the most part) at massive targets, it doesn't require a good deal of accuracy to hit with. Plus the factor that Space Marines have BS4, meaning they can shoot straighter than a Guardsman with their eyes closed.


----------



## arlins (Sep 8, 2010)

CJay said:


> It is called a rifle, yet the gun seems snubbed as an SMG. Not to mention I am still waiting to see a 40k picture that has them firing from the sights and not from the hip.
> 
> I think I read their is like a link up display for their helmet from their bolter, but its still more accurate to put the butt to your shoulder.
> 
> I have seen some pics where they do have like red dot sights and other scopes, and its in the fluff, but you can't help but go, your not really going to be able to hit shit with a gun without a shoulder brace and having a 12 inch barrel.


 and this bothers you more than the fact it only fires 24 inch max ( whats that if we compare scale , about 120ft ):grin:

This is a universe were living metal robots rise from destruction , demons appear and 
the main imperial force cant shoot for shit , webways open and sadomasichistic elves 
swoop in to do rude and unspeakable things to your pet kitten .

seriously just enjoy the game , dont try to apply real world mechanics as that way leads
to madness :biggrin:


----------



## CJay (Aug 25, 2010)

If you have never fired a gun your argument is void 

the fact still remains you shoot a lot more accurately, having the gun aiming directly down your line of sight. I could shoot a 22 rifle (smallest and cheapest rounds ever) with a laser sight on the barrel and be fairly proficient with it at my hip (using the laser as my guide). However I am 10x quicker and more accurate with it at my line of sight.

Heres a way to think of it. Ever played those arcade games with the guns? When you point on the screen, you see an indicator where you are aiming. This is a means of aiming yes, and you can kill the baddies, but its more effective to actually hold it like a real gun and aim as such.

I guess Ima just sit back and agree with Arlin.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

As you said, there's probably a gunsight link between their power armor and the bolter. They could probably literally see down the gunsight without actually having to keep it at their shoulder.


----------



## Warlock in Training (Jun 10, 2008)

CJay said:


> If you have never fired a gun your argument is void .


Well I have fired everything from a .22 to a 50 Cal. So I give your argument a go.




CJay said:


> the fact still remains you shoot a lot more accurately, having the gun aiming directly down your line of sight. I could shoot a 22 rifle (smallest and cheapest rounds ever) with a laser sight on the barrel and be fairly proficient with it at my hip (using the laser as my guide). However I am 10x quicker and more accurate with it at my line of sight.


True, true, but I can shoot a revolver from my hip (something Ive been trying to do) and can hit the Mass body section at 20 ft well enough. Some assholes can quick draw those fukin things in both hands and hit the target at 30 ft damn well under 5 secs. How do you explain that Shit!? Oh wait I can, there that fuking good :laugh:. 

It makes me sick :angry:



CJay said:


> Heres a way to think of it. Ever played those arcade games with the guns? When you point on the screen, you see an indicator where you are aiming. This is a means of aiming yes, and you can kill the baddies, but its more effective to actually hold it like a real gun and aim as such.


For a Rifle aiming at the shoulder makes sense. Say a Shotgun it doesnt matter were the hell you aim. Yet they still have sights... weird.



CJay said:


> I guess Ima just sit back and agree with Arlin.


Your forgetting important facts. They have a link to their gun with their visors. So why Aim witht he sights? They also wear PA and have Super Strength, so the gun kicking wont throw off the aim. Finally these assholes (like I said about some people earlier) are just that fuking good, seriously all they do is SHOOT and STAB shit all day every day. How can they not be that good?


----------



## Malus Darkblade (Jan 8, 2010)

2/10 You got me I admit.


----------



## Dogbeard (Apr 15, 2011)

I suspect hailene is correct; the 3rd Edition Rules even show an "autosense sighting link" and refer to the front sight as a "backup kick sight." The only Space Marines who ever seem to bring firearms to their shoulders are scouts, and typically its a sniper rifle rather than a bolter.

I can't recall ever seeing a bolter referred to as a rifle in an official source, only as a bolter or boltgun, and since it isn't rifled, it would be a misnomer anyway. In general, a bolter seems to be used as in the role of an assault rifle or submachine gun, though with a full automatic setting and 30 round clip, it could be used in a light machine gun role as well.


----------



## Dogbeard (Apr 15, 2011)

I suspect hailene is correct; the 3rd Edition Rules even show an "autosense sighting link" and refer to the front sight as a "backup kick sight." The only Space Marines who ever seem to bring firearms to their shoulders are scouts, and typically its a sniper rifle rather than a bolter.

I can't recall ever seeing a bolter referred to as a rifle in an official source, only as a bolter or boltgun, and since it isn't rifled, it would be a misnomer anyway. In general, a bolter seems to be used as in the role of an assault rifle or submachine gun, though with a full automatic setting and 30 round clip, it could be used in a light machine gun role as well.


----------



## mcmuffin (Mar 1, 2009)

Given the heightened senses of a space marine, i think it is safe to assume that they can judge where to shoot fairly accurately. in one of the SW novels, the initiates can't shoot for shit and it takes them about 2 years training to master their weapons. if you lived every day shooting the same gun for 100 years, I think you would be a damn good shot too.


----------



## Ultra111 (Jul 9, 2009)

If you wanna get technical I think a guns specifications are a much more minor fault than a lot of 40k. 

As has been said, they have a link from their visor to their gun. Therefore eliminating the need to aim down the weapons sites. The scope on the gun is probably for when they take their helmets off and if the visor aiming fails somehow. 

Plus they fire different ammo. Oh, and they are incredibly strong super humans where the recoil is probably not even noticed 

They also do this shit all their lives, which spans multiple lifetimes, so they will be pretty good at it. 

I had another good point but I've forgotten :/

EDIT: oh yeah, if you fire from the hip I imagine you would be more agile (at least it seems like that, I've never fired a gun).


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

Barnster said:


> The bolt is traveling a lot faster than 21st cent bullets as they have have a rocket source, this added speed would help to reduce deviation


Just wanted to point out how insane this statement was. Rocket propelled grenades by their very nature are a hell lot slower then rifle bullets, and no matter of sci-fi nonsense will change the fact. 

Just look at the factors that would slow down a bolter round.
1: Air resistance.
2: Gravity (Weight is probably 100X that of a 308 round.

Matter of fact with very few exceptions bullets do to the incredible amount of acceleration offered by their firing method (Driven by a focused and sudden rapid explosion) are almost always with only a few exceptions drastically faster then a grenade rounds.

Hell in real life you can usually track the approach of mortars, rpg, and grenade launchers. While the fastest bullets will literally hit you before you eyes can process the visual stimuli that something is moving towards you.

On a less crazy note, has anyone thought of how many times marines would have to reload, and how many giant ass clips they could realistically hold? The largest clip save the drum feed or storm bolter are 20 shots, and the largest clip for the BP is 10. Looking at the size of the clips most marines seem to only carry 4-5 straight clips (with pouches). Which means that depending on the pattern of bolter their using most marines could only be able to fire 40-50 times before they ran out of ammo. Meaning in a prolonged fire fight marines would rapidly deplete their ammo supply.


----------



## Dogbeard (Apr 15, 2011)

I don't think the speed of a bolt round has ever been "officially" established, though from the descriptions, I would expect the typical boltgun would have a muzzle velocity of less than 200m per second (656 ft/s) and a maximum sustained velocity of perhaps about 400-500m per second (1,312-1,640 ft/s). Velocity really isn't a problem, however, because as has been mentioned, bolters are typically used at relatively close range and have mass-reactive explosive warheads.

The sickle magazines of bolters carry 20-30 rounds, drum magazines carry 40-60 rounds, and straight magazines carry 12-20 rounds. I recall reading somewhere that Space Marines store clips behind their backpacks; I'm not sure if that's official and it seems somewhat awkward, but considering the lack of ammo pouches visible on Space Marines, it seems like the only possibility. Of course, Devastators carry a massive ammo pack and feeder on their backs.


----------



## locustgate (Dec 6, 2009)

Dogbeard said:


> The sickle magazines of bolters carry 20-30 rounds, drum magazines carry 40-60 rounds, and straight magazines carry 12-20 rounds. I recall reading somewhere that Space Marines store clips behind their backpacks; I'm not sure if that's official and it seems somewhat awkward, but considering the lack of ammo pouches visible on Space Marines, it seems like the only possibility. Of course, Devastators carry a massive ammo pack and feeder on their backs.


If im remebering correctly in one of the SM buses it said that the char had some ammo in a conceled slot in his armor.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

And unlike modern automatic weapons where most of it is used as suppressing fire, marines tend to wade in and just shoot their target. They have the armor and training to make it feasible.

And not to mention a lot of their enemies don't bother taking cover (Orks, Tyranids...).


----------



## Karak The Unfaithful (Feb 13, 2011)

I think the bolter is for killing as many enemies as possible and looking as cool as possible at the same time. Forget accurate shooting! just lay down a hailstorm and look awsome doing it! do bolters even have sights?


----------



## Giant Fossil Penguin (Apr 11, 2009)

The intro for the original DoW series that introduced the Necrons as a playable race, had an Astartes PoV from inside his helmet. Basically, wherever his muzzle is pointed shows up in his eyepiece as a reticule, eliminating the need to aim in the traditional manner. Of course, some might argue that this isn't what it's supposed to look like, but I though it made a lot of sense. It would be rather disconcerting to be shot by an Astartes who isn't even looking at you!

GFP


----------



## Hellados (Sep 16, 2009)

i always thought they didnt aim because they didnt need to. . .


----------



## Zakath (Feb 23, 2011)

LukeValantine said:


> Just wanted to point out how insane this statement was. Rocket propelled grenades by their very nature are a hell lot slower then rifle bullets, and no matter of sci-fi nonsense will change the fact.


I do agree with you but because started nitpicking I'll just have to say that grenades by definition are not propelled at all. Rockets are, and that's why they are called rockets 

I haven't studied the Space Marine fluff too intensely but the HH series speak nothing of those links from their visor to their guns. Might be post-heresy invention, though


----------



## Warlock in Training (Jun 10, 2008)

I actually just finish watching the crappy Space Marine movie (and it sucked bad) and sorry to bust everyones bubble but it is a Rocket propelled. In a slow mo shot of a Bolter round leaving the barrel shows the rocket activate launching it foward and then cutting out (and according to some BL novels activating the warhead) before hitting a CSM in the face. So......


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

Just to clear up a few things:

Bolts are rocket propelled and are 'shot from the barrel under low velocities' - so, at close range it isnt going very fast, but as soon as it leaves the barrel the rocket ignites, so at medium to long distances it hits very fast. (second edition wargear book)

Bolter 'mags' are 20-30 rounds that are staggered so that explains why they are wider than a traditional magasin would be to account for the rounds being side by side. Drum mags carry 40-60 rounds and bolt pistols only manage 6-10 rounds. (3rd edition rule book).

Bolters ARE rifles and they DO have rifled barrels - there is a cut open picture of a storm bolter on page 60 of the third edition rule book with an arrow that says '0.75 calibur rifled barrel'

Bolter are also able to be fired from the hip because they have a direct link to to the marines autosenses and the sights on the barrel are always listed as 'back up sights'


----------



## DijnsK (Mar 29, 2011)

isnt there a sensor in the helmet that helps targeting? no reason to aim down the sights then...

thats why scouts do have to aim down the sights, they dont have helmets


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

Zakath said:


> I do agree with you but because started nitpicking I'll just have to say that grenades by definition are not propelled at all. Rockets are, and that's why they are called rockets


True however that fact is irrelevant, because do to the nature of bolts they are considered rocket propelled grenades (RPG's) and in fact are not grenade launchers in the purest sense (Do to the fact they have a secondary propellant).

However I should go back and make that observation clear in my original post to avoid confusion.

(RPG's also tend to be even slower then Grenade launcher, but do to the hybrid nature one would realistically expect a similar initial acceleration to a 30mm grenade cartage followed by a period of slowing down before the propellant kicks in to maintain acceleration.)

Also comparing a bolter to a real gun (In other words following the laws of physics and mechanics, thermodynamics ect. On would realistically expect the velocity of a bolter to be around 800f/s at the incredibly high end of probability, and more likely 600f/s.

In short grenades are not designed for velocity, and will have the penetrating ability of a .5 pound lead base ball. What makes them deadly is either the shaped charge at the tip, or for the common bolter round the HE tip. So no blowing holes clean throw things for any bolter round (Stupid ultra marines movie), although shaped charges are far better at penetrating armor anyways.


----------



## Dogbeard (Apr 15, 2011)

It's interesting that the 3rd Edition Rules label it as a rifled barrel, but simple physics really eliminates this possibility for practical reasons. The process of engraving that a projectile must undergo to fit the rifling actually slows the projectile in the barrel; since the bolt is "shot from the barrel under low velocities," this would slow it down even more.

To get even a very low (and relatively unstable) twist rate of 1 in 60 inches, a .75 cal bolt would need to achieve a muzzle velocity in excess of 900 feet per second, which simply wouldn't be possible for a rocket propelled bolt fired from a short barrel (even if it could achieve those speeds, based on the size of the bolt the spiraling necessary for stabilization would be something like sixteen rotations in the barrel, which would necessitate a ridiculously long barrel). The net result is that the rifling would actually cause the bolt would yaw and become very inaccurate.

Since the Ultramarines movie has been mentioned, you can actually see in the movie that bolters aren't rifled and that the bolt itself appears to have some sort of rotary stabilizer below the tip.


----------



## CJay (Aug 25, 2010)

Just making note. I do not care if they have an in helmet reticule to help aiming at the hip easier. It is still more effective to aim from your shoulder and down your sites.

here are some other examples:

When lifting something heavy, you can use your arms and jerk straight up with your back. I guess after 100 of years, if you haven't developed chronic back problems, you'd get pretty strong and capable. However bend at the knees and put your legs in the mix and omg! look at how much weight you can now lift!

your going to kick a soccer ball. Sure you can kick it with your toe, but it is more effective and more reliable to kick with the side of your foot.

You make a sandwich and decide to use a spoon to spread the peanut butter, but it will be 10x easier with a knife.

Do we get the picture?


----------



## Dogbeard (Apr 15, 2011)

Well, it's easier to shoot from the shoulder because we line up the sights with our eyes and the shoulder absorbs the recoil. If lining up the sights with your eyes and recoil isn't an issue, I suppose it wouldn't matter if you shot it over your shoulder or under your leg, so long as you were practiced at it.


----------



## chromedog (Oct 31, 2007)

Which SM are.

They are VERY practised at it.
It's pretty much what they do (all they do) when they are not "in ur base, killin' ur d00dz" (practise killing you better).

If you don't need to expose your head to shoot your enemy, you have a tactical advantage. With sights from the gun linked to your helmet with a HUD, You can point your gun around a corner and risk only your arm. This is pretty much part and parcel of the "Future warrior" concept and Power armoured warrior from the first instances of them.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

Dogbeard said:


> It's interesting that the 3rd Edition Rules label it as a rifled barrel, but simple physics really eliminates this possibility for practical reasons. The process of engraving that a projectile must undergo to fit the rifling actually slows the projectile in the barrel; since the bolt is "shot from the barrel under low velocities," this would slow it down even more.


 
Nothing in 40K fits with physics - hell they even have laser beams that 'bounce' off walls and are still lethal...

It says it is, therefore it is - sorry.


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

Guess we will have to file it under the laz guns having recoil, and whole space knight thing.


----------



## Dogbeard (Apr 15, 2011)

Maidel said:


> Nothing in 40K fits with physics - hell they even have laser beams that 'bounce' off walls and are still lethal...
> 
> It says it is, therefore it is - sorry.


I'll forgive you then and stick with what I know. :wink: After all, 40K is full of contradictions and retcons. BTW, what laser beams bounce off walls?


----------



## spanner94ezekiel (Jan 6, 2011)

That would be the flashlights, sir


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

Dogbeard said:


> I'll forgive you then and stick with what I know. :wink: After all, 40K is full of contradictions and retcons. BTW, what laser beams bounce off walls?


Happens in some of the gaunt ghost novels (If my memory serves).

When you start to use 'logic' and 'real world' examples for things in 40K everything starts falling down around you. Its just best to nod and smile and be 'self content' in the knowledge that you know more about physics than the black library writers. :biggrin:


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

That and they apparently laz weapons have kinetic force, and don't behave like real lazers, because that wouldn't be cool enough. Blowing arms off? What did GW designers fail physics class or something.


----------



## spanner94ezekiel (Jan 6, 2011)

No, they just failed life in general...


----------



## Anarkitty (Jul 29, 2008)

Dogbeard said:


> It's interesting that the 3rd Edition Rules label it as a rifled barrel, but simple physics really eliminates this possibility for practical reasons. The process of engraving that a projectile must undergo to fit the rifling actually slows the projectile in the barrel; since the bolt is "shot from the barrel under low velocities," this would slow it down even more.
> 
> To get even a very low (and relatively unstable) twist rate of 1 in 60 inches, a .75 cal bolt would need to achieve a muzzle velocity in excess of 900 feet per second, which simply wouldn't be possible for a rocket propelled bolt fired from a short barrel (even if it could achieve those speeds, based on the size of the bolt the spiraling necessary for stabilization would be something like sixteen rotations in the barrel, which would necessitate a ridiculously long barrel). The net result is that the rifling would actually cause the bolt would yaw and become very inaccurate.
> 
> Since the Ultramarines movie has been mentioned, you can actually see in the movie that bolters aren't rifled and that the bolt itself appears to have some sort of rotary stabilizer below the tip.


Bolts use a 2-stage firing system (which has been previously mentioned). A small explosive charge ejects it from the barrel, and this would also get it started spinning due to the barrel rifling. Then after it leaves the barrel it ignites a secondary rocket propellant that actually carries it to its target, using the technology known today as Gyrojet (Wiki link here), which can use shaped nozzles to add more spin to the round without requiring fins or stabilizers. 
The only thing the rifling does is get it started so that the jets aren't starting from a situation of no rotation at all. This means the barrel doesn't have to be as long as it would for a standard bullet. 
This also means there is some recoil, but less than you would expect from a .75 caliber round, as much of the acceleration happens after it leaves the barrel as well.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

Actually, if you think about it, if the round WASNT rotating when it left the barrel no matter how good those gyrojets were, it could go ANYWHERE. Sure, once they started firing they would guide the bullet in a straight line - but that straight line might not even be close to where they were aiming in the first place.

Anyone who has read up on non-rifled muskets will know exactly what I am talking about.


----------



## Dogbeard (Apr 15, 2011)

LukeValantine said:


> That and they apparently laz weapons have kinetic force, and don't behave like real lazers, because that wouldn't be cool enough. Blowing arms off? What did GW designers fail physics class or something.


I actually remember discussing this on another forum a while back. Pure high-energy lasers would just burn a hole clean through a target, but lasguns could produce these effects if they were actually a sort of pulsed impulsive kill laser, which would quickly superheat the surface of its target to create plasma explosions and would have a strong mechanical effect on the target. Another possibility would be that lasguns are firing particle beams along a laser plasma conduit; this would deliver the kinetic force and the explosive reactions described in the codices and novels.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

Dogbeard said:


> I actually remember discussing this on another forum a while back. Pure high-energy lasers would just burn a hole clean through a target, but lasguns could produce these effects if they were actually a sort of pulsed impulsive kill laser, which would quickly superheat the surface of its target to create plasma explosions and would have a strong mechanical effect on the target. Another possibility would be that lasguns are firing particle beams along a laser plasma conduit; this would deliver the kinetic force and the explosive reactions described in the codices and novels.


However that wouldnt fit with the other things we know about lasguns - like the fact that the power pack can be charged using heat/electicity - so if thats the case - where do the pariticles come from for the beam?


----------



## Dogbeard (Apr 15, 2011)

Theoretically, the particles themselves could be drawn from the air, if the technology was advanced enough; particle beams developed in the '80s used hydrogen.



Anarkitty said:


> Then after it leaves the barrel it ignites a secondary rocket propellant that actually carries it to its target, using the technology known today as Gyrojet (Wiki link here), which can use shaped nozzles to add more spin to the round without requiring fins or stabilizers.
> The only thing the rifling does is get it started so that the jets aren't starting from a situation of no rotation at all. This means the barrel doesn't have to be as long as it would for a standard bullet.


You didn't actually read the Gyrojet article, did you? :wink: Rifling the barrel would cause severe problems, which is why the Gyrojet used vents for stabilization rather than rifling the barrel. Rifling fins could also work, though as I mentioned earlier, the bolt in the Ultramarines movie appears to have some sort of rotary stabilizer band.


----------



## Anarkitty (Jul 29, 2008)

Dogbeard said:


> You didn't actually read the Gyrojet article, did you? :wink: Rifling the barrel would cause severe problems, which is why the Gyrojet used vents for stabilization rather than rifling the barrel. Rifling fins could also work, though as I mentioned earlier, the bolt in the Ultramarines movie appears to have some sort of rotary stabilizer band.


Not recently at the time of posting, no.

I just re-read it though, and while it mentions rifling is unnecessary, nowhere does it state that it it is detrimental or problematic.
In fact, in a case where a two-stage firing mechanism is used (explosive charge to eject the shell, then rocket to propel it over longer distances) the rifling would, in fact, become necessary to provide an accurate start to the shell's flight.

As for why this two-stage system would be used, my own theory is that it is to overcome the low velocities that rocket-propelled rounds suffer from at very close ranges, and the slow rate of fire compared to conventional ammunition. This allows the weapon to still be effective at point blank ranges and in close combat, and allows it to use a standard firing mechanism without the unreliable re-cocking mechanism and internal magazine of pure gyrojet firearms.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

Dogbeard said:


> You didn't actually read the Gyrojet article, did you? :wink: Rifling the barrel would cause severe problems, .


Actually - no it wouldnt - it simply wouldnt do anything (unless the barrels rifiling was trying to spin the bullet the otherway, in which case it might have some interresting results...)

The fact is, these work differently to bolters - the rockets fire in the barrel of these guns and the bullet spins in the barrel because of them.

A bolter fires the round first and the rocket fires after it has left the barrel - if the barrel was NOT rifled, then the bullet would fly out of the barrel and would probably start cartwheeling in the air (like musket bullets used to) and then when the rocket fired, well, it would be like piling up a stack of fire works and lighting them - they would go in all directions.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

I think it's not one or the other, but rather pick your poison.

You could have a gun that shoots rockets with rifling. I think that's what recoilless rifles are. Most of them, anyway.

The gyrojet articles that 4 mini jets ignite while the projectile is still in the barrel. This creates the spin needed to keep projectile pointing forward and not tumble.


----------



## Dogbeard (Apr 15, 2011)

Maidel said:


> Actually - no it wouldnt - it simply wouldnt do anything


Except go wildly out of control.

A RAP system is feasible, but while this will increase the range of the bolt, it will also greatly reduce its accuracy. The muzzle velocity of the bolter would also have to be higher, since the initial track and spin of the bolt would be determined by the barrel and propellant. Since the bolt's killing power doesn't rely on penetrating power or ballistic injury, its muzzle velocity can be much lower without effecting its performance; once the mass-reactive detonator is engaged, you could probably throw a bolt at a target with lethal effect.

Many recoilless rifles have rifled barrels (the term is often also applied to unrifled models as well, such as the SPG-9), but these necessarily fire their projectiles at a higher velocity down a long barrel. The idea of the bolter being more akin to a recoilless rifle than a Gyrojet is probably apt though.

If you want the bolter to be rifled, it's no skin off my nose. Cheers.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

Dogbeard said:


> Except go wildly out of control.


Im not trying to be arguementative - but why?

There is nothing in that article that says that and I cant find anything on a quick google search either. Its not my area of expertise - but I cant see why it would do that - if both the rifling of the barrel and the gyrojet (which remember in the bolters case only fires after it leaves the barrel) rotate in the same direction - why would it go wildy out of control?




> If you want the bolter to be rifled, it's no skin off my nose. Cheers


Hey, its GWs fluff, not mine :biggrin:


----------



## laviathan13089 (Apr 21, 2011)

Dogbeard said:


> I actually remember discussing this on another forum a while back. Pure high-energy lasers would just burn a hole clean through a target, but lasguns could produce these effects if they were actually a sort of pulsed impulsive kill laser, which would quickly superheat the surface of its target to create plasma explosions and would have a strong mechanical effect on the target. Another possibility would be that lasguns are firing particle beams along a laser plasma conduit; this would deliver the kinetic force and the explosive reactions described in the codices and novels.


wouldnt that be a pulse rifle? 

Another thing, what kind of propellent do bolt rounds use? how about the explosive tip? what kind of metal do they have? how much do they weigh? since all of these factors play CRITICAL roles in the physics/thermodynamics/aerodynamics of said bolt rounds. i feel like you all know something i dont, because if you didnt know any of these things and are guestimating based on current, crude, weapons... that would make you retarded, wouldn't it? :biggrin:


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

Actually you can make a damn good guess at aerodynamics based on appearance, and size, and going on how gw has discussed how bolters work and released diagrams of how they roughly function we know that there is very little tech besides possible metallurgical innovations in a bolter.... in short yah we can make some damn good assumption on how a bolter would work in real life going on this info.

Also from the show instances of bolters firing the propellant is most likely a standard chemical propellant (Not much different from what we now have) most likely in a solid stat while the primary explosion is most likely basic smokeless powder.


----------



## Dogbeard (Apr 15, 2011)

:goodpost:



Maidel said:


> Im not trying to be arguementative - but why?


I guess I am being sort of argumentative.  The basic problem comes down to velocity and centrifugal force of the projectile. Once the rocket propellant ignites, there is also a shift in the projectile's center of gravity. Honestly, these problems probably could be overcome, but rifling the barrel would be introducing problems that wouldn't exist with a smoothbore barrel.



laviathan13089 said:


> wouldnt that be a pulse rifle?


Not exactly, no. According to the Tau dex, it uses a "induction field [James Maxwell's magnetic quantity B] to propel a particle, which reacts by breaking down to create a plasma pulse as it leaves the barrel." This is a sort of particle beam, with the twist that the particles become highly ionized (probably through the ejection of electrons, hence "breaking down").

A PIKL is a high-energy laser that fires a series of ultrashort pulses on the order of picoseconds (one trillionth of a second) or even femtoseconds (one quadrillionth of a second); if in the visible spectrum, millions of these pulses would appear to the human eye as an uninterrupted beam of light. This seems to me like a really good candidate for the lasguns of 40K.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

Joy.

Everyone wants to argue with me today. 

So, basically it is possible.


----------



## Anarkitty (Jul 29, 2008)

Maidel said:


> Joy.
> 
> Everyone wants to argue with me today.
> 
> So, basically it is possible.


Yep, and yep apparently.


----------



## Dogbeard (Apr 15, 2011)

But there's the rub. It's possible, but only if the bolt is fired from the barrel at relatively high velocity. Plus, you would still get yaw when the bolt rocket ignited out of the barrel, compromising its accuracy. As odd as it may sound, a smoothbore would be much more accurate if the muzzle velocity is low and the rocket ignites out of the barrel, as stated in the lore. 

If you want to rationalize it, it's possible that only storm bolters are rifled (as shown in the 3rd Edition), to allow for increased penetrating power at very close ranges. Given the doctrine of terminators engaging at close range, this would make some sense.


----------



## Speedo01 (Dec 10, 2012)

I think their armour is too bulky to have the wearer look down the sight (look at mk 8 errant and grey knights aegis power armour), so maybe that useless inch wide sight holds a camera in it hooked up to the helmets interface.

couldn't they also curve the bullet?


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

marines dont need to use sights or look down the barrel and all that shite for one simple reason... the rule of cool, you dont get cool points for using a weapon logically and effectively you get cool points for looking bad ass.
the whole point of 40k is to escape realism, not to encourage and abide by it.


----------



## Iron Angel (Aug 2, 2009)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyrojet

"The Gyrojet is a family of unique firearms developed in the 1960s named for the method of gyroscopically stabilizing its projectiles. Rather than inert bullets, Gyrojets fire small rockets called Microjets which have little recoil and do not require a heavy barrel to resist the pressure of the combustion gases. Velocity on leaving the tube was very low, but increased to around 1,250 feet per second (380 m/s) at 30 feet (9.1 m). The result is a very lightweight weapon."

In the 60s the bullets could reach almost 400m/s. Think what they can do 20000 years from now. Also they were more accurate due to gyroscopic stabilization and had extremely low recoil.

Thats how a bolter works. Its a big gyrojet machine gun 20000 years in the future.


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

CJay said:


> Just making note. I do not care if they have an in helmet reticule to help aiming at the hip easier. It is still more effective to aim from your shoulder and down your sites.


Your example is inherently flawed as you don't know what kind of targeting software they're running. A pilot is not looking down the barrel of his gun when he fires, but it hits the target he's aiming at. Why? Because the software know he's not looking down the barrel of his gun and compensates. 

You're imposing what is more effective for you, not for a Space Marine. You should not conflate the two as you're not a Space Marine. 

I've you've never written software for targeting computers in jet fighters your argument is void.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

The only problem with not having the weapon into the shoulder is stability which has an effect not only on the individual accuracy of a given round but also the precision of a group of rounds. 

Holding a weapon by your side is not stable because it is designed to be in your shoulder.

If however the weapon is designed to be held rock solid in a servo actuated suit of power armour and aimed by an off axis designator then it really doesn't matter where you hold it. Just like a fighter plane's machine guns in the wings, like Aramoro says.


----------



## Insanity (Oct 25, 2011)

CJay said:


> Just making note. I do not care if they have an in helmet reticule to help aiming at the hip easier. It is still more effective to aim from your shoulder and down your sites.


But that's the thing, the link from their helmet to their gun is exactly the same as looking down the sights. there is no difference. If they did hold the butt to their shoulder they would just be seeing the same thing as what is in their helmet. Which would look pretty weird as well.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

Insanity72 said:


> But that's the thing, the link from their helmet to their gun is exactly the same as looking down the sights. there is no difference. If they did hold the butt to their shoulder they would just be seeing the same thing as what is in their helmet. Which would look pretty weird as well.


They wouldn't actually see the view of looking through the sights tho' you'd just see a target reticule superimposed over your normal vision, like a heads up display in a fighter.


----------

