Bolter variants

[Melissia]

Because of an argument on the IGMB, I've done a bit of research into varieties of bolter weapons, and I'm attempting to rank them in terms of power. Mind you, the official tabletop game versiosn put them at all the same power level for simplicity's sake, but in the actual fluff and in Dark Heresy, they're widely different.


Imitation Civilian Bolt Weaponry
-- Best example: Volg "Spitfire" Bolt Pistol
-- Crude imitation of a bolt pistol. Unreliable, not actual bolt weaponry, but considered it by the masses.
-- Modified grenade launcher, fires rocket-propelled flares which explode on impact.
-- Used almost entirely by criminals, very unreliable and liable to blow up on the user.

Civilian Patterns of Bolt weaponry
-- Best example: Cinder Crag Forge "Mauler" Bolt Pistol
-- Designed for human physiologies, capable of being used by the average person with proper training.
-- Smaller caliber and usually lesser quality (though not always), but mostly reliable.
-- Used by the Imperial Guard, Arbites, and Mechanicus.

Imitation Sororitas Bolt Weaponry
-- Best example: MkII Scourge Pattern Boltgun
-- Similar to the Godwyn-Deaz, but usually lower quality and less devastating.
-- More destructive than civilian bolt weaponry, but still less so than the real thing.
-- Used by nobles and their personal troops, and Inquisitorial servants.

Imitation Astartes Bolt Weaponry:
-- Best example: Angelus Bolt Carbine
-- Highly illegal, hard to obtain. Low ammunition count, high recoil, hard to use.
-- Very high quality, devastating and powerful.
-- Used by Inquisitors, assassins, and bounty hunters.

Sororitas Bolt Weaponry
-- Godwyn-Deaz pattern boltgun.
-- High quality, longer barrel with attached Sarissa, a spiked and serrated blade.
-- Requires power armor or insanely massive strength (bionic enhanvements?) to use effectively.
-- Used by Sororitas, Inquisitors

Astartes Bolt Weaponry
-- Godwyn pattern boltgun.
-- High quality, shorter barrel, larger clip and ammunition.
-- Most humans would injure themselves severely attempting to use it, even in power armor it would be difficult.
-- Used by Astartes



This is drawn from various sources, but Dark Heresy is the most important source. There's more than just one "boltgun", to be sure, there's countless varieties in the Imperium, as it is a very popular weapon, even if for most people it is impractical. Enjoy/Discuss.

[Denzark]

This is interesting as I've never heard of civvy Bolter fakes before. One question (not for arguement's sake I assure you!) but why is Dark Heresy the 'most important source'?

[RocketRollRebel]

Thanks for that little break down. I had always wondered how guardsmen with bolters worked. I mean if it looks about the size of an SMG on a marine then it must be massive on a normal human, but this put it much more into prospective. Good work!

[Nabterayl]

Can you back up a couple of those statements for me, Mel?

You claim that the Mk II Scourge is more destructive than "civilian" boltguns, but Dark Heresy ranks them exactly the same - the Scourge is simply more mechanically reliable (and at the cost of an extra three kilograms of mass). What's your warrant for claiming that the Scourge is more destructive than "civilian" boltguns?
What's your warrant for claiming that power armor or enhancements are necessary to effectively wield a Godwyn-Diaz? Are you just speculating based on the probable mass of a loaded weapon; i.e., the weapon would be difficult to handle because of its great weight?
What's your warrant for claiming that Astartes boltguns would be difficult to use even in power armor, and dangerous for an unarmored human? Is it just, again, the probable mass of the loaded weapon? I can buy that an Astartes boltgun would be difficult to wield because it [probably] weighs a lot, but I don't buy that it would be dangerous to use. Lifting it might be difficult (but probably possible; I have a very hard time imagining a loaded Astartes bolter massing more than 35 kg), but actually firing the thing seems like it would be quite comfortable (except, again, for the strain of holding such a heavy weapon in firing position). After all, an unaugmented human can fire Astartes-caliber bolts from an Angelus quite accurately, which means that the recoil of an Angelus must be quite controllable. An Astartes-caliber boltgun with a full clip would mass considerably more than an Angelus, and yet the impulse of firing would be exactly the same as with an Angelus - hence, felt recoil would be considerably less.

[Aldramelech]

Goodbye

[Melissia]

Nabterayl: I probably shouldn't have used that variant, yes, but the thing is that it is a higher quality weapon which requires much more strength to use. It's not an actual Godwyn-Deaz bolter.

As for the actual Sororitas and Astartes weapons? I draw that from other fluff, where it is said that a human using an Astartes bolt weapon tends to be injured in the process. Sororitas bolt weapons are longer and less stubby, but slightly less bulky, than Astartes weapons of the same type-- actually, Astartes bolt pistols are almost as large as civilian pattern bolt rifles.


This is interesting as I've never heard of civvy Bolter fakes before. One question (not for arguement's sake I assure you!) but why is Dark Heresy the 'most important source'?Most important only because it had the most information.


I thought boltguns were recoiless?Never have they been labeled such.

[Nabterayl]

I thought boltguns were recoiless?
Not in the sense of a true recoilless rifle, no. Bolts are ejected from the barrel by a small conventional propellant charge, which works just like any other (for the benefit of those who don't know: explosive solid [gunpowder] converts from solid to gas very quickly [explodes], the resultant gas expands in the firing chamber and barrel, pushing in all directions - pushing the bolt out the barrel, and pushing the barrel away from the bolt, which feels to the user like the gun is "kicking"). Once clear of the barrel, the bolt's rocket provides the rest of the impulse needed to reach the target.

In a normal weapon, of course, this would result in almost negligible recoil, as you need very little force to push a 5.56mm rocket out of a barrel. Bolters throw two wrenches into the mix:

How heavy is a bolt? Even the caliber is unclear at this point; it used to be clear that "Astartes-caliber" bolts were 0.75 caliber, but more recent fluff heavily implies that "Astartes-caliber" bolts are even larger than that, with the upper limit being "fist sized" (roughly 35mm to 40mm, depending on whose fists we're talking about). Let's call "Astartes-caliber" bolts 25mm. That places 0.5 kg as a reasonable upper limit on the mass of an Astartes-caliber bolt, since it's pretty clear (I think) that Astartes-caliber bolts are shorter than the 25x223mm rounds (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/pgu-25.htm) used in a Vulcan cannon, which weigh 493 grams apiece. Still ... how much force do you need to eject a shell that weighs up to half a kilogram from your weapon, bearing in mind that each shell has to be able to clear the barrel quickly enough for the weapon to achieve automatic fire (albeit very probably automatic fire with a very low rate of fire). Not that much, but I'm sure the amount is not negligible.
.
How heavy is a bolter? Even a "civilian" boltgun weighs 7 kg (which is probably an unloaded figure). We know from the Inquisitor's Handbook that at least one pattern of weapon used by the Order of the Ebon Chalice weighs 10 kg (again, probably an unloaded figure). That's a lot of mass to absorb the kick from the initial propellant charge, which even for 20-25mm bolts is probably pretty small to begin with.
So what we have is a very heavy weapon and a propellant charge sufficient to move a short but high caliber round a very short distance. All of this points to bolters having a very low recoil*, but they aren't literally recoilless.

* Bolt pistols are another matter. Most bolt pistols fire full-size bolts, and yet are much lighter (because they're much shorter) than their boltgun equivalents. Consequently the highest-recoil bolt weapons are actually the pistols.

[Aldramelech]

Goodbye

[Aldramelech]

Goodbye

[Melissia]

Hey, it's GW's fluff, not mine. I agree that they should have lower recoil than they do.

[Nabterayl]

Nabterayl: I probably shouldn't have used that variant, yes, but the thing is that it is a higher quality weapon which requires much more strength to use. It's not an actual Godwyn-Deaz bolter.
It isn't, no, but it's good enough for the Ebon Chalice on Iocanthos, and it has all the characteristics we would associate with a Godwyn-Deaz: high damage output*, mechanical reliability, a full-size clip**, and automatic fire with a burst limiter. I see no reason to classify the Mk. II Scourge as a second-class weapon.

* 1d10+5X is "civilian" caliber, but it's also very nearly the same as the 2d10X given as "Astartes" caliber. A damage range of 5-16, with an expected average of 10.5, is not really very different from a damage range of 2-20, with an expected average of 11. I know plenty of players who would prefer the former range, in fact.

** We know from Imperial Armour and various codices that Astartes tend to use 20 or 30-round clips, so the 24-round clip of a Mk. II Scourge is plenty big.


As for the actual Sororitas and Astartes weapons? I draw that from other fluff, where it is said that a human using an Astartes bolt weapon tends to be injured in the process. Sororitas bolt weapons are longer and less stubby, but slightly less bulky, than Astartes weapons of the same type-- actually, Astartes bolt pistols are almost as large as civilian pattern bolt rifles.
Can you quote any of that "injured in the process" stuff? All the information I've seen leads me to believe that Astartes boltguns would be absurdly heavy with very low felt recoil. Astartes pistols would undoubtedly have a higher felt recoil, but even then ... you need a lot of force behind your projectile to reliably injure the shooter of a firearm. My retcon dogs are straining at the leash on this one.

[Aldramelech]

Goodbye

[Sangre]

Can you quote any of that "injured in the process" stuff? All the information I've seen leads me to believe that Astartes boltguns would be absurdly heavy with very low felt recoil. Astartes pistols would undoubtedly have a higher felt recoil, but even then ... you need a lot of force behind your projectile to reliably injure the shooter of a firearm. My retcon dogs are straining at the leash on this one.

Astartes weapons are designed to use a lot of force.

[Just_Me]

Very interesting topic, I had something similar in mind, but you beat me to it :D. It occurred to me the other day that we might all be thinking incorrectly about the "rocket assisted" nature of bolt weapons. We have all assumed that this means one of two things; a) bolts are mini-rockets with that get all of their thrust from the rocket with no conventional propellant (unlikely), or b) that the initial thrust is conventional, and after the round clears the barrel the rocket charge ignites and accelerates it. There is however a third possibility, based on modern anti-armor tech it could be that the bolt gets all of its thrust from conventional shells and upon contact with the target the rocket charge ignites a fraction of a second before the explosive detonates (the "mass-reactive" part of the description), forcing the shell and explosive force through protective armor and directly into the target. This would explain both the supposed kick of bolt weapons (hence the need for them to be as heavy as they are) and their effectiveness at penetrating armor, and given that modern weapons already have this capability (albeit not to my knowledge in such small packages) it is well within the realm of possibility.

Anyway, just a thought let me know what you folks think.


It makes sense that "Bolt weapons" must be a problem for normal humans, why would the IG use the incredibly useless (in game terms anyway) Lasgun?

In game terms it might seem to be useless compared to the other stuff out there, but in real terms it is slightly better than any modern assault rifle, not to mention much easier and cheaper to produce en-mass and far more reliable (supposedly a lasgun will still function if you lean it against a tree and come back a year later).

[Sir Biscuit]

First off, I think that it's important to note that boltguns, have quite a lot less kick than one would expect. It is true that bolts are fired like a modern, conventional firearm, complete with shell casing, but as it leaves the barrel (or after, depending on your fluff :P) it ignites a booster within the shell that gives it its surprising range and penetration. Now, I imagine that it's not a paltry amount of force that gets a shell that largel moving, and I'd say it's probably comparable to firing a .950 JDJ round (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.950_JDJ). (pic (http://www.gunslot.com/pictures/950-jdj-biggest-rifle-bullet-planet)) So yes, an Astartes bolter will cause serious injury if it's fired like a regular rifle, but if the firer takes precautions they should be able to do it without damage. Erm, they should also fire single shot and not burst.

Keeping this in mind, it's important to look at how Space Marines and Sisters wield their boltguns, because for them it seems to be easy, in fact. Neither faction has any kind of stock on their bolter, and it seems that space marines are able to use stormbolters at two handed weapons while in normal power armour (see sternguard vets). In addition, while this rule doesn't exist anymore, there used to be a USR called “true grit” which allowed space marines to use their bolter as an extra close combat weapon, by firing it one handed! So, I imagine that the massive engineered strength of a space marine combined with his armour makes the weapons kick negligible. Mostly the armour, actually, as I can't see any amount of muscle really affecting your strength that much once you add in the armour, whatever your muscles add to it would be trifling.

Sisters, it seems, are much the same way. Seraphim are perhaps the best example of this: they wield a bolt pistol in each hand, and are renowned for their accuracy with them. Since bolt pistols actually use the same bolts as a boltgun (”http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Bolt_pistol”), we can imply that a normal human, in power amour, can wield any variant of boltgun comfortably.

Here, also, is an issue I take with Dark Heresy. I cannot stress enough, that the stats presented in Dark Heresy are NOT an accurate reflection on the fluff. I can say firsthand that Dark Heresy is an RPG, and the weapons are designed to be balanced for play. In fact, Space Marine bolters are actually not really any better than a regular bolter. The only difference between the two is that the Space Marine bolter does 2d10 damage instead of 1d10+5. So... yeah. Math. Also, take a look at the damage you can do with twin ****ing Hecutor pistol does with manstopper rounds. Dark Heresy is a fun game, and I love it, but good god are the stats off. There is no reason why Marine bolters would differ from Sister bolters except stylistically, the marines bolters can't be so big that someone in power armour couldn't use one effectively. The fluff I've read seems to indicate the same thing. (And to be honest, the only place where I've heard sister boltguns separated from Marine boltguns is in Dark Heresy)

[Melissia]

There are no official stats for Godwyn or Godwyn-Deaz pattern boltguns in Dark Heresy, Sir Biscuit.

The MkII Scourge Pattern Boltgun is based off of the design used by a local Sororitas convent, but it isn't actually the same IIRC. That's why I listed it as an imitation, not an actual Sororitas armament.

[Nabterayl]

It makes sense that "Bolt weapons" must be a problem for normal humans, why would the IG use the incredibly useless (in game terms anyway) Lasgun?

Ive always thought that the weight and supply of the ammunition was the limiting factor for Imperial Guardsmen (Or Guards persons lol) but Ive always had a problem with amounts of ammo used vs carried by Space Marines anyway, It don't add up.
Here's my take on it:

Bolt weapons are automatic weapons, even if some of them are equipped with burst limiters. Yet, for the mass of projectile they use, their propellant charges are very low. So low, I believe, that you probably can't cycle the weapon with the gas generated by a bolt's initial propellant charge.

My personal suspicion is that bolt weapons use an electrically driven action, similar to a chaingun (for those who don't know how a chaingun works: now you do (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaingun#Description)). That would account for the famed temperamental nature of bolt weaponry and its need for constant maintenance - it has a lot more moving parts than a regular gun. In turn, these extra parts increase the mass of the weapon, but I personally suspect that most of a bolter's mass is present simply to shield the cycling mechanism from the bumps and jostling of a combat zone. That is to say, I think you probably could design a very lightweight bolter, but you might find that it broke down on you constantly in the field. "Real" bolters, for all their reputation of requiring constant maintenance, make it through firefights pretty consistently.

So let's say you've got a bolter that weighs 12kg loaded, and a lasgun that weighs 5kg loaded. The bolter gives you twenty rounds; the lasgun gives you 100. As a soldier, which would you pick? Even if I was promised an unending supply of ammunition back at base, honestly, I'd take the lasgun. Of course, supply is a problem for the Imperium - but soldiers have historically hated heavy kit, even the heavy stuff is effective. I'm not sure I really care how effective my ammunition is if I have to carry 55 pounds just to have five clips, plus the weight of the weapon itself (I mean really, how long can you hold a 26 pound weapon in a firing position) - that's 70 pounds of kit buck naked.

As for Astartes? Well, as we've discussed in a couple of threads, they don't carry a lot of ammunition, a fact which Imperial Armour regularly points out. There's a reason the standard Astartes mission profile is drop, kill target, and return to starship.

[Nabterayl]

The MkII Scourge Pattern Boltgun is based off of the design used by a local Sororitas convent, but it isn't actually the same IIRC.
I don't think you do recall correctly. Re-read page 171 of the Inquisitor's Handbook.

[Melissia]

Ah, you're right. I would still argue the Godwyn-Deaz is probably the better firearm as far as damage goes, however.

[Nabterayl]

Ah, you're right. I would still argue the Godwyn-Deaz is probably the better firearm as far as damage goes, however.
Why? The Angelus fires the exact same shells as a Blood Angel fires, and the Mk. II Scourge's ammunition is only arguably inferior to those in terms of damage potential.

[Sangre]

Why? The Angelus fires the exact same shells as a Blood Angel fires, and the Mk. II Scourge's ammunition is only arguably inferior to those in terms of damage potential.

Then it is, by definition, not as good.

[Melissia]

Because I believe military-grade weapons crafted for the Orders Militant of the Adepta Sororitas would be better than something you can purchase off the friggin' street.

[Nabterayl]

1d10+5 is not by definition not as good as 2d10. Plenty of sane, mathematically savvy folks would actually prefer 1d10+5 to 2d10, in a game where you don't actually get to roll damage all that often and the consequences of a bad roll can be rapidly fatal. Which is better than which is a question of the shooter's personal risk tolerance.

[Nabterayl]

Because I believe military-grade weapons crafted for the Orders Militant of the Adepta Sororitas would be better than something you can purchase off the friggin' street.
"Very rare" is hardly something you can purchase off the street. The only thing harder to obtain than "very rare" items are items that aren't in the game at all.

I agree that, in general, sisters and marines would have better crafted weaponry than the weapons you find in Dark Heresy or even Rogue Trader games. But "better crafted" doesn't mean "does more damage." The Angelus' shells are a perfect example of that. "Better crafted" in the world of 40K could mean anything from "breaks down less often" to "has gold filigree inscribed on every square inch of surface."

Even "military-grade" isn't code for "better." Today's "military-grade" weapons aren't "military grade" because they fire more powerful or more devastating bullets than are available to civilians. A "military grade" rifle is not necessarily more accurate, more powerful, or longer ranged than its civilian equivalent.

[BDub]

This is interesting as I've never heard of civvy Bolter fakes before. One question (not for arguement's sake I assure you!) but why is Dark Heresy the 'most important source'?

Because it makes up 90% of the source material. The nature of an RPG dictates that designers have to extrapolate from the existing fluff scales of weaponry to stretch out over the range of encounters and player experiences from lower levels to higher levels. Thus they have to create variants and less powerful copies of known equipment to fill in what would be long gaps with flat advancement curves (read as boring RPG).

Unfortunately I feel this ultimately dilutes the canon a bit, but its a huge universe and there is a lot of wiggle room for this kind of thing.

[Sir Biscuit]

And again, I have to say that Dark Heresy is NOT a good way to stat out these weapons if you want an actual fluff comparison. Unless you truly believe that a machine pistol is better than a boltgun.

While working on the FAQ/Errata for the core rulebook/IH, I asked a lot of questions about things that didn't make sense from a fluff perspective, or didn't seem balanced. ("Why can you upgrade whips and clubs with the "mono" upgrade?" "Shouldn't duplex clips have reload on time on every OTHER reload, not every reload?") The response was the same for all of them. "Whether they [the rules and stats] make sense in the real world is less important. After all, we are talking about a game in which Space Elves have guns that shoot ninja stars, among other craziness. :)"

A lot if the fluff in Dark Heresy is great, works well, and provides a good explanation. The stats and hard rules, however, should not be taken as a be-all-end-all. It's a game, and the weapons are designed to give the players progression without overpowering them against the enemies they're facing, and maintaining a power balance within the group.

[Nabterayl]

And again, I have to say that Dark Heresy is NOT a good way to stat out these weapons if you want an actual fluff comparison. Unless you truly believe that a machine pistol is better than a boltgun.
The point isn't that Dark Heresy is the be-all and end-all of stat comparisons. The point is that it's one data point in the argument. All we're doing is discussing what that data point is - no matter what we settle on, or how firmly we settle on it, it will remain one data point in the argument. If you can quote some other source that is probative of "civilian" bolt weapons doing materially less damage than "military" bolt weapons to toss out some more data points, please do.

[Sir Biscuit]

Oh, and in addition, bolt shells would still have a ton of recoil.

It's true that most of the acceleration is from the rocket propulsion, but a significant velocity must still be enacted on the bullet to give it a stable trajectory until the rocket can be activated. Not to mention that a high initial velocity is advantageous.

How do I know? Because they already exist, and have since the 60's. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyrojet)

[Nabterayl]

Oh, and in addition, bolt shells would still have a ton of recoil.

It's true that most of the acceleration is from the rocket propulsion, but a significant velocity must still be enacted on the bullet to give it a stable trajectory until the rocket can be activated. Not to mention that a high initial velocity is advantageous.

How do I know? Because they already exist, and have since the 60's. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyrojet)
As that article points out, there's no reason that you couldn't design your rockets to burn most of their fuel in the early stages of flight. Gyrojets weren't built that way, but bolters could be - we know nothing about the actual rocket mechanics.

It's true that you'd need a fair amount of force to get the bolt out of the barrel. Without knowing the bolt's mass or the mass of the bolter, however, it's impossible to say how much recoil that force would actually produce.

[Sir Biscuit]

The point isn't that Dark Heresy is the be-all and end-all of stat comparisons. The point is that it's one data point in the argument. All we're doing is discussing what that data point is - no matter what we settle on, or how firmly we settle on it, it will remain one data point in the argument. If you can quote some other source that is probative of "civilian" bolt weapons doing materially less damage than "military" bolt weapons to toss out some more data points, please do.

How about some real world knowledge about guns? Military weapons generally WILL inflict more damage, be more accurate, and need replacing less. It has nothing to do with the "grading" though, since all these weapons are mass produced and expensive, I can't imagine making them to a lower standard for civilians, especially since the boltgun is such a "holy" weapon. Instead, I imagine that the military equivalents are better because they have tech-priests to give them regular maintenance, easy access to spare parts, and a higher standard of ammunition. A boltgun off the street is likely smuggled, possibly deficient, it's ammunition is that same, and it's unlikely that the new owner will be able to care for it correctly.

In addition, I wasn't aware there was even a civilian model available, I thought that all bolt weapons in civilian hands were either smuggled and bought off the black market, or the property of nobles and other high ranking persons.


As that article points out, there's no reason that you couldn't design your rockets to burn most of their fuel in the early stages of flight. Gyrojets weren't built that way, but bolters could be - we know nothing about the actual rocket mechanics.

It's true that you'd need a fair amount of force to get the bolt out of the barrel. Without knowing the bolt's mass or the mass of the bolter, however, it's impossible to say how much recoil that force would actually produce.

That is true... although we do have the fluff telling us that bolters kick like a mule, regardless of numbers. That would imply that there is a high muzzle velocity, which makes sense given that bolters are expected to be used against things like power armour or gigantic carapaced space bugs. They need the pen, and they need it at close range as well as long range. While we may not have any definite number on the amount of recoil force a boltgun produces, I don't think it's unreasonable to say it's "a lot".

[Nabterayl]

How about some real world knowledge about guns? Military weapons generally WILL inflict more damage, be more accurate, and need replacing less.
Unless you live in a country where automatic weapons are illegal, military weapons will not generally inflict more damage than their civilian counterparts. An AR-15 firing a 5.56mm NATO round will inflict just as much damage as an M-16 firing the same 5.56mm NATO round. The M-16 is capable of automatic fire, which the AR-15 is not, but that's due to a combination of federal and state laws. Plainly enough, there are plenty of places in the Imperium where it is not illegal for civilians to own automatic weapons.

Military rifles are not necessarily more accurate than civilian rifles, either - hunting rifles and competition shooting rifles in particular may well be more accurate than most military rifles.

As for needing maintenance less often, that is one area in which military weapons tend to exceed their civilian counterparts. "Can take a beating and still operate just fine" is one of the major things that "military" means in this context.

[Melissia]

40K is not modern. The civilians DO get weaker and lesser variants of military weapons quite frequently. Laslocks instead of lasguns, for example, and Civitas pattern laspistols instead of the normal patterns.

[Nabterayl]

That is true... although we do have the fluff telling us that bolters kick like a mule, regardless of numbers.
I mean this in all seriousness: do we? I've read a decent amount of 40K fluff, and all I can think of is a passage where a sister hospitaller fires a celestian's bolt pistol and every shot "shakes her frame," which doesn't tell me a whole hell of a lot as we would expect bolt pistols to have the highest felt recoil in the family.

I know I haven't read everything. Can somebody actually start quoting some passages wherein boltguns kick like a mule so we can get some more data on this graph?

[Nabterayl]

40K is not modern. The civilians DO get weaker and lesser variants of military weapons quite frequently. Laslocks instead of lasguns, for example, and Civitas pattern laspistols instead of the normal patterns.
The same is true today, but if I owned a .22, you would be mistaken if you inferred from that that I didn't have access to cartridges more powerful than 5.56mm NATO. Civilians, unlike soldiers, have the option of equipping themselves with weapons that are less powerful than those soldiers get. Even Dark Heresy asserts that civilians can get weapons that are every bit as powerful as those used by the military.

[Sir Biscuit]

Unless you live in a country where automatic weapons are illegal, military weapons will not generally inflict more damage than their civilian counterparts. An AR-15 firing a 5.56mm NATO round will inflict just as much damage as an M-16 firing the same 5.56mm NATO round. The M-16 is capable of automatic fire, which the AR-15 is not, but that's due to a combination of federal and state laws. Plainly enough, there are plenty of places in the Imperium where it is not illegal for civilians to own automatic weapons.

Military rifles are not necessarily more accurate than civilian rifles, either - hunting rifles and competition shooting rifles in particular may well be more accurate than most military rifles.

As for needing maintenance less often, that is one area in which military weapons tend to exceed their civilian counterparts. "Can take a beating and still operate just fine" is one of the major things that "military" means in this context.

I think you misunderstood my point, I must have made it poorly. I was trying to convey that military weapons will tend to be better than civilian weapons because they are better maintained. On average, I think it's safe to assume that a military bolter will be in better shape than a civilian bolter and thus perform better, no?


I mean this in all seriousness: do we? I've read a decent amount of 40K fluff, and all I can think of is a passage where a sister hospitaller fires a celestian's bolt pistol and every shot "shakes her frame," which doesn't tell me a whole hell of a lot as we would expect bolt pistols to have the highest felt recoil in the family.

I know I haven't read anything. Can somebody actually start quoting some passages wherein boltguns kick like a mule so we can get some more data on this graph?

Besides the mention that a normal human would injure themselves firing it, which very much implies it, and some very bad passages from some very bad fiction that I refuse to quote, I've got nothing. :P That's an interesting point, and a poor assumption I made.

[Melissia]

If they're nobles or crime lords, yes, but certain weapons are illegal to possess everywhere, regardless of the laws of the world, and of course it depends on the world. In Gunmetal City, you'd be laughed at for carrying a pistol that wasn't customized and personalized, while in Iocanthos the leader of hte largest faction in the world is the leader because he has a standard lasgun.

[Nabterayl]

I think you misunderstood my point, I must have made it poorly. I was trying to convey that military weapons will tend to be better than civilian weapons because they are better maintained. On average, I think it's safe to assume that a military bolter will be in better shape than a civilian bolter and thus perform better, no?
Ah, well, if that's your assertion, then yes, I agree with you - definitely I think your average military weapon will be maintained better than your average civilian weapon, and I definitely agree that that will tend to lead to better performance, or at least more reliable performance. In fact, I'd say that's probably true of all classes of weapons, not just bolt weaponry. If you buy a laspistol from your local hive gun shop, is there a techpriest standing around to teach you how to maintain it? Probably not - whereas guardsmen are taught how to maintain their lasguns as part of basic training.


Besides the mention that a normal human would injure themselves firing it, which very much implies it, and some very bad passages from some very bad fiction that I refuse to quote, I've got nothing. :P
Does anything even say that a normal human would injure themselves? Anybody got a quote?

[Just_Me]

while in Iocanthos the leader of hte largest faction in the world is the leader because he has a standard lasgun.

Not to be an ***, but I read through the DH worlds descriptions last night and I can't help being a but note that you are confusing Iocanthos with Zillman's Domain. Iocathos has plenty of lasguns (albeit the crappy cast-off kind the the Munitorum trades for Ghostfire pollen).

The problem with modern analogies to 40k is that, while in some places and some respects it works, in others it doesn't apply at all. In a lot of ways the Imperial military is based on a feudal model, they will keep the best weapons for their armies, and the more elite they are the better the weapons they get, everyone else has to make do with second or third-class weapons (unless you have the money or clout to indulge yourself).

Regarding bolter kick I have to make a few observations, from a combination of personal experience and my own reading, modern firearms with a large charge have a pretty significant kick, nothing major enough to seriously injure most users but still significant. Extended shotgun firing might bruise the shoulder, and if you fire a handgun chambered for and loaded with Magnum rounds without properly bracing you can you could sprain your wrist. As I said in greater detail earlier in this thread (and it seems to have been overlooked), I have come to believe that the rocket charge of a bolt only ignites on point of impact, so the propulsion is entirely conventional, requiring a very heavy charge to propel it, and a correspondingly massive kick. This would also account for the reputed weight of these weapons, as it would be necessary to make it a usefully stable firing platform, especially if it is capable of fully automatic fire.

As for whether Dark Heresy is an ideal source for comparing different weapon models, the fact is that question is irrelevant as it is literally the only source for such a comparison, everything else lumps weapons into much broader generalized categories as simply "bolt weapons."

[Melissia]

Meh, we're talking about minor worlds that recieved a paragraph or three in the book. I can't memorize EVERYTHING....

[Just_Me]

Meh, we're talking about minor worlds that recieved a paragraph or three in the book. I can't memorize EVERYTHING....

True enough, as I said I only noticed because I read it last night.

[Melissia]

Well there is Inquisitor, but the only difference between the models of bolt rifles in Inquisitor is what kind of clip it has.

[Nabterayl]

The problem with modern analogies to 40k is that, while in some places and some respects it works, in others it doesn't apply at all. In a lot of ways the Imperial military is based on a feudal model, they will keep the best weapons for their armies, and the more elite they are the better the weapons they get, everyone else has to make do with second or third-class weapons (unless you have the money or clout to indulge yourself).
You're confusing medieval analogies (40K) with Renaissance analogies (WFB). In a medieval world civilians can get any weapon they can pay for. For most civilians that means pretty piss-poor stuff, but for other civilians (such as knights) it means the best gear in existence.


As I said in greater detail earlier in this thread (and it seems to have been overlooked), I have come to believe that the rocket charge of a bolt only ignites on point of impact, so the propulsion is entirely conventional, requiring a very heavy charge to propel it, and a correspondingly massive kick.
I didn't overlook it, but I don't see on what facts you're basing this retcon, so I'm not quite sure how to interact with it. The description of bolts as "self propelled mass-reactive" shells (e.g., Rogue Trader 121) suggests precisely the opposite to me - bolts are "mass-reactive" in the sense that they explode, but I think your retcon tortures the meaning of "self-propelled" pretty badly.

EDIT: You mention "massive kick ..." got a quote to share with us?

[Melissia]

Knights woudl be the equivalent of nobility. Also, what you can get depends entirely on which world you're on and the laws regarding weapons on that world more than the amount of money you have.

[Just_Me]

You're confusing medieval analogies (40K) with Renaissance analogies (WFB). In a medieval world civilians can get any weapon they can pay for. For most civilians that means pretty piss-poor stuff, but for other civilians (such as knights) it means the best gear in existence.

That isn’t strictly true, to my understanding most feudal lords were pretty particular about what their serfs could and could not get their hands on in terms of weapons. In feudal Japan for instance it was punishable by death for peasants to own a sword, and in some cases to own any kind of lethal weapon at all (hence most of the "weapons" in Karate are repurposed tools).


I didn't overlook it, but I don't see on what facts you're basing this retcon, so I'm not quite sure how to interact with it. The description of bolts as "self propelled mass-reactive" shells (e.g., Rogue Trader 121) suggests precisely the opposite to me - bolts are "mass-reactive" in the sense that they explode, but I think your retcon tortures the meaning of "self-propelled" pretty badly.

EDIT: You mention "massive kick ..." got a quote to share with us?

Here we have the fundamental issue with speculation on a fictional universe, if the writers of that universe have not specifically come up with a fact, then evidence for that fact simple does not exist. In the absence of definitive fact we must apply logic and inference to fill in the gaps

So far as I know the best description we have ever gotten for how bolts work is that they explode on contact and have some form of internal rocket assistance. However, there is abundant circumstantial evidence to conclude that bolts do have a fairly significant conventional component, both the art and the models clearly show bolts have shell casings, which makes no sense at all unless they are fired with a conventional charge. Similarly, while we might conclude that this charge is minor and used only to eject to shell from the barrel before the rocket takes over there is no direct evidence for this, not only it would render the bolt all but useless at very close range (and there is plenty of evidence that a bolt weapon can be placed against a target’s body and still have the same effect), it seems needlessly complicated. Given the propensity for Imperial military tech to go for the straightforward and brute force approach rather complexity or finesse, this later point cannot be overlooked. In addition, there is no in account in the fluff (that I am aware of) that suggests that bolts do anything but behave like simple ballistic bullets in flight (if they were really being boosted along by rockets we would expect to see that mentioned). In fact as far as we are told in every account I have seen bolts don’t seem to do anything particularly special until they actually hit their target.

Therefore we can logically infer that bolts are propelled by conventional explosive charges, and this would also explain the massive physical bulk and weight always associated with bolt weapons. But then what do we make of the “rocket” bit? We know that bolts react explosively upon contact, we know that they are good at penetrating armor, and we know that modern armor defeating munitions use vectored explosions and last second thrust to penetrate armor. Therefore, to me at least, the most logical conclusion which best accounts for all of the available facts is the one I mentioned.

[Nabterayl]

Well, it's not just the word "rocket." Inquisitor, Rogue Trader, and Dark Heresy all describe bolts as "self-propelled," and the SM codex and SW codex both describe them as "missiles." I think that makes it pretty clear that we're talking about more than rocket-assisted armor penetration. Those words, to me, describe rocket-assisted flight.

The short-range effectiveness is certainly a problem on that model. But remember that we aren't talking about gyrojets here - a 25mm explosive bolt can explode against your skin and it will still do plenty of damage, even if it's only moving at 100 mps, the speed of a fairly hot paintball gun (a 250-gram bolt moving at 100 mps also has a not-inconsiderable amount of kinetic energy - 1250 J - so if the bolt is shaped for penetration even at the velocity it could penetrate skin and light body armor). 100 mps is plenty fast enough to achieve cyclical fire rates in excess of 15 rounds per second, which is almost certainly many times faster than a bolter on automatic fires anyway (incidentally, a 250g bolt fired out of a 17kg bolter would produce almost one-eighth the felt recoil of an M4 firing a NATO-standard load).

Then there's the issue of the casings, which are also a little odd if you have rocket-assisted flight. But even aside from the conventional "initial propellant" argument (which I think dates back to Wargear, but I don't have a copy of that book - does anybody else?), a casing would help protect the rocket exhaust ports from the rigors of the environment - as we know from Gyrojets, even a little moisture or dust in those exhaust ports will seriously compromise the performance of your ammunition.

I used knights as an example deliberately, because the whole idea of "military" versus "civilian" doesn't really apply to the medieval period, whereas it definitely applies to the Imperium.

[plasticaddict]

"In the grim darkness of the far future there is only war!" Many "military issue only" weapons find themselves in civilian hands and no all of those hands are untrained. I can't recall what books but I seem to remember a story where an IG officer was mustering out and brought melta and plasma weapons home with him, enough to equip his tribe with in fact. Many are the worlds of the Emperors domain and just a vast are their laws. On Cadia everyone knows how to use and maintain basic infantry weapons. On another world weapons of any kind may be illegal and have those laws enforced by the death penalty. There are former Guardsmen, retired Arbites and ex-PDF troopers on nearly every world. Rouge Traders are powers unto themselves and equip themselves and their troops with the best money can buy. Bolters are described as being .75 caliber (19.05mm or10 gauge) this would be supported by fluff describing modified bolt rounds that can be fired out of a shotgun. A bolted is a very large and heavy weapon, weight reduces felt recoil (the "kick"), if a bolter fires using a standard cartridge as a base charge and then becomes rocket propelled in flight (as seems to be the most commonly accepted conclusion) there are several examples of how this may be done while reducing recoil, the weapon could have a recoiling barrel (likely in heavy bolters and possibly storm bolters), the cartridge could be a low pressure round similar to a 40mm grenade launchers ammunition (a likely option), the weapon could be gas operated as opposed to recoil operated (this would lower felt recoil and make the weapon more maintenance intensive) or several of these could be combined.

I believe that a gas operated weapon, using low pressure rounds, would fit the fluff very well. The weapon would be heavy because of the size of the components and the weight of the ammunition. It would be temperamental due to the gas operating system and still have a heavy recoil. Normal humans would be able to use these weapons on a limited basis and with proper training keep them reliable. Marines and other augmented persons (bionics, augmentics or wearing power armor) would be able to use these weapons freely as, while heavy, the recoil would be negligible to them. It is important to note that while a bolt pistol would have far more felt recoil than a bolt rifle, with a gas operating system it would still be manageable. And there are other tricks to lowering the felt recoil that could be employed and that would lead to more maintenance issues, again fitting the fluff. If the projectile was launched with a low pressure charge and the rocket assist ignited at that time, the weapon would be lethal at all ranges, particularly when you take into account the explosive nature of the "mass reactive" rounds being fired.

[Sangre]

Let's not forget we're not dealing with the Dark Age of Technology here. We're dealing with secret designs that are sacred to the Machine God. Bolters are meant to be vicariously rare at the best of times.

[plasticaddict]

So far as I know the best description we have ever gotten for how bolts work is that they explode on contact and have some form of internal rocket assistance.

The rounds are described as self propelled.

However, there is abundant circumstantial evidence to conclude that bolts do have a fairly significant conventional component, both the art and the models clearly show bolts have shell casings, which makes no sense at all unless they are fired with a conventional charge.

That does not preclude the use of a rocket assisded round similar to some modern artillery shells.

Similarly, while we might conclude that this charge is minor and used only to eject to shell from the barrel before the rocket takes over there is no direct evidence for this,

Nor is there evidence to the contrary.

not only it would render the bolt all but useless at very close range (and there is plenty of evidence that a bolt weapon can be placed against a target’s body and still have the same effect), it seems needlessly complicated. Given the propensity for Imperial military tech to go for the straightforward and brute force approach rather complexity or finesse, this later point cannot be overlooked.

In fluff all true Bolters are hand crafted

In addition, there is no in account in the fluff (that I am aware of) that suggests that bolts do anything but behave like simple ballistic bullets in flight (if they were really being boosted along by rockets we would expect to see that mentioned). In fact as far as we are told in every account I have seen bolts don’t seem to do anything particularly special until they actually hit their target.

Bolts are described as being self propelled not self guided.

Therefore we can logically infer that bolts are propelled by conventional explosive charges, and this would also explain the massive physical bulk and weight always associated with bolt weapons. But then what do we make of the “rocket” bit? We know that bolts react explosively upon contact,

After penetrating the target, not on contact, as per fluff.

we know that they are good at penetrating armor, and we know that modern armor defeating munitions use vectored explosions and last second thrust to penetrate armor. Therefore, to me at least, the most logical conclusion which best accounts for all of the available facts is the one I mentioned.[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry but the established fluff argues against you on many points. As described in your hypothesis the bolt shell would be far more complex than a simple time delayed impact fuse, arguing aginst your "straight forward and brute force approch". Bolter shells are already complex and so are the weapons, bolters (and bolt pistols) are passed down on generation to the next, even in Space Marine chapters.This would imply that the weapons are manufactured with extremely durable materials and no delicate parts are used, that would account for much of the weight.

[DarkLink]

So far as I know the best description we have ever gotten for how bolts work is that they explode on contact and have some form of internal rocket assistance. However, there is abundant circumstantial evidence to conclude that bolts do have a fairly significant conventional component, both the art and the models clearly show bolts have shell casings, which makes no sense at all unless they are fired with a conventional charge. Similarly, while we might conclude that this charge is minor and used only to eject to shell from the barrel before the rocket takes over there is no direct evidence for this, not only it would render the bolt all but useless at very close range (and there is plenty of evidence that a bolt weapon can be placed against a target’s body and still have the same effect), it seems needlessly complicated. Given the propensity for Imperial military tech to go for the straightforward and brute force approach rather complexity or finesse, this later point cannot be overlooked. In addition, there is no in account in the fluff (that I am aware of) that suggests that bolts do anything but behave like simple ballistic bullets in flight (if they were really being boosted along by rockets we would expect to see that mentioned). In fact as far as we are told in every account I have seen bolts don’t seem to do anything particularly special until they actually hit their target.

Therefore we can logically infer that bolts are propelled by conventional explosive charges, and this would also explain the massive physical bulk and weight always associated with bolt weapons. But then what do we make of the “rocket” bit? We know that bolts react explosively upon contact, we know that they are good at penetrating armor, and we know that modern armor defeating munitions use vectored explosions and last second thrust to penetrate armor. Therefore, to me at least, the most logical conclusion which best accounts for all of the available facts is the one I mentioned.

There's actually some stuff in Dark Heresy that explains how this all works (I'm pretty sure it's Dark Heresy, though I could be wrong).

In said source, it mentions that Astartes Boltguns have very large initial charges. It gives them very heavy recoil, more than a non-Astartes could handle, but makes them highly lethal at close ranges. On the other hand, Boltguns such as those used by Commissars and similar have a small initial charge, and rely on rocket propulsion to gain momentum after they leave the barrel.

Because these are explosive bolts, they will do damage at pretty much any range, but non-Astartes Boltguns are much less effective at point blank range.

Also, "last second thrust" wouldn't be very useful at all. It would only be able to add a minuscule amount of kinetic energy to the round. Additionally, without a continuous rocket propulsion immediately after the barrel, Boltguns would have an extremely short range. Even Astartes Boltguns would have ranges well under 300m if you assume that the rocket only engages an instant before hitting the target, and it would hit with significantly less kinetic energy than if the rocket propels the bolt the entire distance.

It's basic physics. A rocket has a limited capacity for acceleration, as only a limited amount of solid fuel can burn within a given point of time. So you can either have X acceleration for a split second, or you can have X acceleration for the entire duration of the bolt's flight. Guess which one provides a greater final kinetic energy.

So while you're completely correct about the bolt exploding and such, there is no reason to think that the rocket only propels itself for a split second before impact (this is also not supported by any fluff I've ever heard).

Now, there is at least one type of bolt that, when it explodes, has a hardened needle that is propelled by said explosion into the target, giving it significant penetrative power. But this is very different from relying on a short-burst rocket.

[Just_Me]

The rounds are described as self propelled.

Which is admittedly a problem with this idea, but it is plenty vague enough to be open for interpretation.


That does not preclude the use of a rocket assisded round similar to some modern artillery shells.

I never implied that it did (in fact I originally thought that they were rocket assisted after firing). The problem with this explanation is that such artillery shells require rocket assistance for one of two reasons; to significantly extend their range, or to aid in stability of truly massive payloads. There is no indication that bolt weapons are significantly longer ranged than any other weapons, and while their bolts are large they are hardly so large that conventional propulsion alone cannot propel them. So the question becomes what possible benefit or reason is there for such a complex propulsion system?


Nor is there evidence to the contrary.

That's kinda my whole point, what part of that fact that my theory is based on using logic to fill in massive gaps in our knowledge was unclear? You can't argue that your lack of evidence trumps my lack of evidence.


In fluff all true Bolters are hand crafted

Not to be rude, but so what? What does that fact have to do with anything? It doesn't change the fact that the underlying philosophy of Imperial tech is brute force. When given the choice between a technically simple and a technically complex solution they will inevitably choose the simple one, that they choose to hand make it and encrust it with gilt and filigree is neither here nor there.


Bolts are described as being self propelled not self guided.

Where did I say anything about self guided? The fact is that a shell with its own internal propulsion would exhibit some very unique qualities, most notably little or no muzzle drop for most of its flight, and greater force over greater distances with smaller force over smaller distances. Not to mention they would have a very distinctive appearance in flight that would be hard to overlook.


After penetrating the target, not on contact, as per fluff.

That is the whole point, and exactly what I said about advanced anti-armor munitions, they are designed to be driven through the outer armored layer before detonation, rather than detonate on the surface. All the more reason to suspect that a last second rocket boost drives the bolt into the target before detonation.


I'm sorry but the established fluff argues against you on many points. As described in your hypothesis the bolt shell would be far more complex than a simple time delayed impact fuse, arguing aginst your "straight forward and brute force approch".

How on earth do you figure that a time delayed fuse is "simpler"? That would require a whole set of supporting tech, range finders, computerized triggers, etc. just look at the XM-25 weapon system. Impact triggered reactions by contrast are purely mechanical or chemical, and are entirely within the reach of modern munitions (hell, in simplest form they were within the reach of WWI era tech), let alone the Imperium.


Bolter shells are already complex and so are the weapons, bolters (and bolt pistols) are passed down on generation to the next, even in Space Marine chapters.This would imply that the weapons are manufactured with extremely durable materials and no delicate parts are used, that would account for much of the weight.

No, it really wouldn't. Real world firearms, if properly maintained, can last and function for generations. Any time you make a firearm you must make a trade-off between weight and functionality; heavy weapons are more stable firing platforms but are less portable and slower to bring on to target, both of the latter are a concern in battle field conditions (a soldier must be able to travel and react quickly, and an overloaded soldier will tire more quickly and be unable to carry as much ammo or other gear). If a military firearm is as massive and heavy as bolt weapons are then there must be a damn good reason for it, simply being robust is only a partial explanation.

And as for a quote and citation stating unequivocally that bolters have a significant kick; Dark Heresy: Inquisitor's Handbook, pp. 173, subheading "Weapons of the Astartes." It is stated here that not only are Astartes bolt weapons prohibitively heavy and massive, but "a human trying to fire such a weapon would likely suffer a recoil of such strength that it would rip their arm from its socket." Perhaps an exaggeration, but still evidence for massive recoil and by extrapolation very, very powerful conventional (explosive) propulsion.

So the only reasons to have either a purely rocket propelled projectile (e.g. Gyrojet), or rocket assisted projectile are to launch large payloads with little recoil, or to very significantly extend the payload range. Evidently neither is the case with bolters, so we must look elsewhere to account for the properties attributed to them. I have given my own personal thoughts on the matter and explained my reasoning, if someone else can give me a solid logical reason to account for these points, and still show that it offers practical, functional benefits then I would be happy to hear it. Until then I am inclined to accept my own explanation as the one that best accounts for all of the available facts (or most of them at least).

EDIT:

There's actually some stuff in Dark Heresy that explains how this all works (I'm pretty sure it's Dark Heresy, though I could be wrong).

In said source, it mentions that Astartes Boltguns have very large initial charges. It gives them very heavy recoil, more than a non-Astartes could handle, but makes them highly lethal at close ranges. On the other hand, Boltguns such as those used by Commissars and similar have a small initial charge, and rely on rocket propulsion to gain momentum after they leave the barrel.

Because these are explosive bolts, they will do damage at pretty much any range, but non-Astartes Boltguns are much less effective at point blank range.

Yes, that was my original thinking, but the problem is that we routinely hear about commissars placing their blot pistols against somebodies skull and then scattering their brains across the room, so the "empirical" evidence doesn't really jibe with that idea.


So while you're completely correct about the bolt exploding and such, there is no reason to think that the rocket only propels itself for a split second before impact (this is also not supported by any fluff I've ever heard).

Again, the problem is that all the fluff that I have heard of is very vague and noncommittal on the subject of rocket propulsion, and if they were being propelled along in mid-flight we would expect that to be a notable and distinguishing feature that would have been mentioned somewhere. The fault here really rests with the writers, but this brings us back to the issues associated with accounting for the workings of a fictional universe, if it hasn't been written then it hasn't been defined. We can either ignore the fluff and construct our own versions (and there is nothing exactly wrong with that), or we can try to reconcile the fluff and account for what it does and does not say. I have tried to do that latter, and while I will admit that my idea isn't perfect, as far as I can tell it covers the greatest number of facts. It has it's holes and its problems, but it is the least bad of a bad lot.

[Aldramelech]

Goodbye

[Old_Paladin]

Something that I think we're all forgetting is that the physics of 40K is not always equal to our own (even if it's similar most of the time).
Lasguns have recoil; in fact, Master Sniper Larkin comments that he has a permenant bruise from the kick of his longlas.

A bolt weapon really seems to be a "because the plot says so weapon" that follows the "rule of cool" it's a massive full-auto rocket launcher that no normal man could use when it needs to be, but that same weapon can be stolen from a chaos marine and then pump a half dozen rounds into his face plate by one of Gaunts Ghosts (as long as however is holding the weapon makes it seem cool). Likewise, if it proves a point; the tainted rebel that steals the bolter from an Ultramarine will always be thrown back 20 feet and crush his skull against a wall if he tries to use it...

@ Aldramelech:
Have you seen the stopping power of a shotgun? Why do you think most special forces carry at least one. In fact, there are prototype full-auto shotguns, with 24 round drums, with an effective range of 2-3 hundred yards; which could replace up to half of the US armies M-4's for urban combat missions within a few years.

[plasticaddict]

As I sat here reading the posts, it occured to me that I may have a Wargear book in the closet. I did. Here is a description from that book of a bolt gun and it's ammunition as written on page 21:

"It is a short compact weapon that fires a small missile or bolt considerably larger than an ordinary bullet. The bolt contains an armor piercing tip, an explosive, and a mass reactive detonator. It is shot from the barrel under low velocity, its own propellant igniting once the missile is clear of the barrel.

The explosive detonates only when it has pierced armor. Any sudden increase in local mass activates the explosive and blows the target apart from the inside.

Bolt guns are niosy and their effects are visibly devastasting. Effective range is not great, and they are thus ideally suited to a shock/attack role."

I believe that this description should solve much of the debate. This is from the wargear book and as such I will regard it as cannon.

[Just_Me]

"It is a short compact weapon that fires a small missile or bolt considerably larger than an ordinary bullet. The bolt contains an armor piercing tip, an explosive, and a mass reactive detonator. It is shot from the barrel under low velocity, its own propellant igniting once the missile is clear of the barrel.

Interesting, so we finally have a definitive answer...

Well that puts paid to my idea.

[Aldramelech]

Goodbye

[DarkLink]

Something that I think we're all forgetting is that the physics of 40K is not always equal to our own (even if it's similar most of the time).
Lasguns have recoil; in fact, Master Sniper Larkin comments that he has a permenant bruise from the kick of his longlas.

Technically, laser weapons do have recoil. It's just insignificant, as in it takes extremely sensitive scientific equipment just to measure it.



A bolt weapon really seems to be a "because the plot says so weapon" that follows the "rule of cool" it's a massive full-auto rocket launcher that no normal man could use when it needs to be, but that same weapon can be stolen from a chaos marine and then pump a half dozen rounds into his face plate by one of Gaunts Ghosts (as long as however is holding the weapon makes it seem cool). Likewise, if it proves a point; the tainted rebel that steals the bolter from an Ultramarine will always be thrown back 20 feet and crush his skull against a wall if he tries to use it...

Everything in the 40k 'verse pretty much follows this rule.



@ Aldramelech:
Have you seen the stopping power of a shotgun? Why do you think most special forces carry at least one. In fact, there are prototype full-auto shotguns, with 24 round drums, with an effective range of 2-3 hundred yards; which could replace up to half of the US armies M-4's for urban combat missions within a few years.

Right, a shotgun (within it's effective range) has significantly more firepower than a battle rifle.

Though a shotgun almost certainly won't replace that many M-4's, as the effective range of the weapon is ~150 yards (here's a video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fn02le8e0nQ)). The Army understands the need to engage targets to 300m or more, and the Marine Corps requires everyone to qualify at 500m. And in Afghanistan, with comparatively little urbanization and extensive rural areas, the ranges of engagements are usually beyond even these ranges. The AA-12 doesn't have the capability of replacing the M-4 as a main weapon in these conditions.

Now, when they do fight in close quarters, the AA-12 will definitely be worth it:cool:. It makes shotguns a lot more viable for military operations, just not on open terrain like the majority of Afghanistan.



No, it really wouldn't. Real world firearms, if properly maintained, can last and function for generations. Any time you make a firearm you must make a trade-off between weight and functionality; heavy weapons are more stable firing platforms but are less portable and slower to bring on to target, both of the latter are a concern in battle field conditions (a soldier must be able to travel and react quickly, and an overloaded soldier will tire more quickly and be unable to carry as much ammo or other gear). If a military firearm is as massive and heavy as bolt weapons are then there must be a damn good reason for it, simply being robust is only a partial explanation.


Right. Even the much-maligned M-16 is actually a very reliable weapon. Sure, it's not an AK, but it works. The reason for it's reputation is because the first versions were put into service after too little testing, and no cleaning kits were issued. Once they figured out what was going on, they made some modifications to the design and it worked fine. It only kept it's only partially deserved reputation.



So the only reasons to have either a purely rocket propelled projectile (e.g. Gyrojet), or rocket assisted projectile are to launch large payloads with little recoil, or to very significantly extend the payload range. Evidently neither is the case with bolters, so we must look elsewhere to account for the properties attributed to them. I have given my own personal thoughts on the matter and explained my reasoning, if someone else can give me a solid logical reason to account for these points, and still show that it offers practical, functional benefits then I would be happy to hear it. Until then I am inclined to accept my own explanation as the one that best accounts for all of the available facts (or most of them at least).

Well, considering the size of the projectile, firing it would have considerable recoil without a rocket assisted setup. This lets non-Astartes fire bolters. On the other hand, Astartes can take the recoil, so the rocket assistance only increases the range of the weapon, which isn't a bad thing.



Yes, that was my original thinking, but the problem is that we routinely hear about commissars placing their blot pistols against somebodies skull and then scattering their brains across the room, so the "empirical" evidence doesn't really jibe with that idea.

Rule of Cool. Dark Heresy conflicts with this in its technical description of non-Astartes bolter weapons, as I recall. Plus the explosive bolts would still probably be enough to blow someone's head off. It would just be slightly less lethal.



Again, the problem is that all the fluff that I have heard of is very vague and noncommittal on the subject of rocket propulsion, and if they were being propelled along in mid-flight we would expect that to be a notable and distinguishing feature that would have been mentioned somewhere. The fault here really rests with the writers, but this brings us back to the issues associated with accounting for the workings of a fictional universe, if it hasn't been written then it hasn't been defined. We can either ignore the fluff and construct our own versions (and there is nothing exactly wrong with that), or we can try to reconcile the fluff and account for what it does and does not say. I have tried to do that latter, and while I will admit that my idea isn't perfect, as far as I can tell it covers the greatest number of facts. It has it's holes and its problems, but it is the least bad of a bad lot.

I'll admit, I'm not sure where you're getting a reason for saying that bolts only self-propel an instant before impact. I would think the default assumption (given the lack of evidence you pointed out) would be a constant propulsion. /shrug/

[Just_Me]

I'll admit, I'm not sure where you're getting a reason for saying that bolts only self-propel an instant before impact. I would think the default assumption (given the lack of evidence you pointed out) would be a constant propulsion. /shrug/

As I said, it was an attempt to come up with a logical explanation that explained the discrepancies we see in the description of bolts as rocket propelled and what we "observe" in the fluff. For one thing a rocket propelled bolt would generate its own light (as if they were tracer rounds) and leave an exhaust trail, neither of which has ever been mentioned (to my knowledge) even though they would have pretty significant ramifications for their use.

All of this is a moot point as plasticaddict found a citation that specifically states that bolts are conventionally launched and rocket assisted (it figures it would be in one of the only 2-3 40k books I don't have access to :(). Of course, this doesn't explain the above issues, or solve the problem of low muzzle velocity making bolters all but ineffective at point blank range, but what can you do?

[Nabterayl]

Ask anybody who served in the British Forces in the 1980s "Would you like to have your 7.62mm L1A1 back or keep your shiny new 5.56mm SA80?" and they'd vote for the old weapon every time. When you hit someone with that round you knew that they were damn well staying down, not so with 5.56.

100 shots from a Lasgun sounds quite impressive but if those 100 shots are about as effective as a chocolate tea pot, whats the point?
Fair enough, but I think this is a different kettle of fish. This isn't so much like asking a squadie whether he wants his 7.62 or his 5.56; it's more like asking him whether he wants his 7.62 or an automatic grenade launcher. I wasn't exaggerating when I quoted 100 rounds in 5 clips plus weapon - that's a standard tactical marine loadout, and it's not unreasonable to estimate that that weighs 35 kg. How many militaries do you know who would choose a 17kg standard issue combat rifle, and how many soldiers would accept a standard combat loadout that weighs 35kg without even clothes, let alone body armor or other battlefield accessories, and only gets them 100 rounds?

Lasguns may not have the same stopping power, but they're hardly peashooters. At some point your procurement department has to admit that a weapon, however killy, is simply too heavy to be your general issue combat rifle, right? How well do you think the XM25 would go over if it weighed twice what it presently weighs? In fact, wasn't that one of the development hurdles of the old OICW, and the XM25 both?


As I sat here reading the posts, it occured to me that I may have a Wargear book in the closet. I did. Here is a description from that book of a bolt gun and it's ammunition as written on page 21:
Thanks for the quote, plasticaddict!


As I said, it was an attempt to come up with a logical explanation that explained the discrepancies we see in the description of bolts as rocket propelled and what we "observe" in the fluff. For one thing a rocket propelled bolt would generate its own light (as if they were tracer rounds) and leave an exhaust trail, neither of which has ever been mentioned (to my knowledge) even though they would have pretty significant ramifications for their use.

All of this is a moot point as plasticaddict found a citation that specifically states that bolts are conventionally launched and rocket assisted (it figures it would be in one of the only 2-3 40k books I don't have access to :(). Of course, this doesn't explain the above issues, or solve the problem of low muzzle velocity making bolters all but ineffective at point blank range, but what can you do?
I think you're overstating the problems here, Just_Me. The engagement ranges we see in both fluff and rules are quite low, so I'm not sure that the flatter trajectories of a rocket-propelled shell would be especially noticeable, except that marines and sisters would seem to have very high accuracy - which we do observe in the fluff.

Rocket propulsion can create light, but it doesn't have to. It could just leave an exhaust trail (example at 1:00 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7l8XFhWngaw)).

As for the effectiveness at point blank range, what precisely are the problem passages for you? I ask because of the following:
"Low muzzle velocity" could mean anything from about 50 mps to 320 mps (any slower and you probably can't achieve automatic fire; 320 mps is a reasonable muzzle velocity for .45 ACP, which is a slow bullet by most standards). Let's say a bolt weighs about 250 g upon exiting the muzzle. Depending on where we are in that range of "low velocities," it's not unreasonable for a bolt of that mass to penetrate a body, despite its "low velocity."
Dark Heresy specifically notes that boltguns "are known for the unique roar they make when fired, as the propellant in their shells ignite [sic], followed shortly by the explosive detonation as they hit their target" (Dark Heresy 133). The "roar" (which other sources have noted as well) suggests to me that bolts expend most of their rocket propellant in their flights - otherwise we'd get something that's more like a hiss. So while muzzle velocity of a bolt may be low, the velocity of a bolt at CQB ranges may not be.
The Wargear description seems consistent to me with being able to physically press a bolt pistol to somebody's skull and blow it off, and when you add in the Dark Heresy description I can see bolt weapons being effective at very close (but not literally point blank) ranges as well. Does that address your difficulties?

[plasticaddict]

A 40mm grenade launcher has a muzzle velocity of 76mps with an average weight of .23kg, the round must travel 2-28 meters before arming (depending on the specific round being fired) however the round is still considered lethal if fired directly into a target at a shorter range. A bolter round would be smaller (approx 19mm) with a projectile weighing in at approx. .1kg, if you reduced the velocity of the projectile by 50% you would still have a highly lethal projectile at the muzzle, even if the warhead did not detonate.

Considering that a bolter shell is designed to engage "hard"(armored) targets at range, an unarmored head at point balnk should prove no trouble at all. As far as leaving a smoke trail, not all forms of combustion leave a noticable trail or burn with a visiable flame. It is entirely possiable that the "self propelled" portion of the bolts flight is entirely masked by the inital flare of the conventional propleant at the weapons muzzle. The rocket may only fire briefly before exhausting it's fuel, entirely possiable given the size of the projectile.

[Just_Me]

... Does that address your difficulties?

Entirely? No. But as I said I came up with the late ignition theory in the absence of evidence to try to account for some discrepancies in the fluff that bothered me.

However, as much as these issues still bother me, I am more pleased to finally have a definitive description of how bolters work. I was satisfied with the rocket assisted explanation for the most part, and while it has problems, now we know that it is the right one, we just have to try to reconcile these problems. The biggest problem remains low muzzle velocity and anti-armor ability at close range, as we have accounts in the fluff that suggest that bolt weapons are actually more effective at point blank range, not to mention serious kick. Again, this has more to authors treating them like really, really big guns rather than what they truly are.

[Nabterayl]

However, as much as these issues still bother me, I am more pleased to finally have a definitive description of how bolters work.
Yeah, likewise.

we have accounts in the fluff that suggest that bolt weapons are actually more effective at point blank range, not to mention serious kick. Again, this has more to authors treating them like really, really big guns rather than what they truly are.
I know you aren't defending these passages as the best available evidence, but which accounts are you thinking of? Got any quotes?

[plasticaddict]

If we go with the theroy of a "low velocity" firing combined with a rocket assist begining with the exit from the muzzel you wind up with a projectile that is increasing in velocity at point blank range. The inital impetus of the powder charge and the inital boost from the rocket firing would combine to bring about a high velocity, combine that with a projectile hiting a target while the rocket boost was still firing and there is no trouble explainig how a point blank shot would be lethal.

In point of fact, a "blank" cartridge can be lethal at close range and that is only a paper plug being fired, not an armor piercing shell.

[Nabterayl]

The problem that Just_Me is pointing out is related to the thrust of the rocket. Here's a simple illustration: let's say we have a rocket that produces enough thrust to accelerate the bolt by 1/s^2. Over a flight of 1,000 seconds, and ignoring friction from the air, the bolt will have a velocity of 1,000 mps by the time its rocket runs out of fuel - reasonably fast for a combat rifle projectile.

However, let's suppose the bolt hits an obstacle two seconds into flight. The bolt hits the obstacle at 2 mps, which is a very, very low velocity. The bolt's velocity drops to 0 mps, and then, over the next 998 seconds, it pushes impotently against the obstacle with its puny little thrust, and never gets anywhere.

This is a dumbed down example, but it illustrates the problem Just_Me is pointing out: a rocket that can propel a projectile to a very high velocity by the end of its flight might be a rocket that can't even knock over a child very early in its flight.

This is a genuine problem, but there are ways around it. The variables we have to work with are:

The initial propellant charge - just how slow is the bolt moving before its rocket ignites? All we know is that the velocity is "low." What does that mean? As fast as a spitball? As fast as a paintball? As fast as a .45? All of those have "low" velocity by firearm standards. A bolt traveling as slow as a spitball isn't going to do much more than make you say, "Ow" (until it explodes). A bolt traveling as slow as a .45 is going to produce a very serious wound even if it doesn't explode. Which brings us to:
The explosive power of the bolt itself - a rocket bullet traveling at 2 mps is perfectly safe to catch with your bare hands. A rocket explosive shell is not - so no matter how slow a bolt is early in its flight, its explosive properties are going to ensure it can do some damage. Nobody wants a bolt exploding right next to their skin, even if having a bolt explode inside your skin is worse.
The thrust profile of the rocket - there's no reason that a bolt has to have constant thrust until it runs out of rocket fuel. Let's say that a bolt has enough rocket fuel for a 5 second flight, and that the rocket imparts a total velocity of 1,000 mps (I'm just making up numbers to illustrate my point). That doesn't necessarily mean that at 1 second the bolt's velocity is 200 mps, at 2 seconds it's 400 mps, etc. You could design a rocket that accelerates to 500 mps in the first half-second of flight, and then imparts the remaining 500 mps in the last 4.5 seconds of flight. Add on 50 or 100 mps of velocity from the initial propellant charge and you have a pretty high velocity very early on. This would be a way to get a bolt that achieves high velocity even at very short ranges, yet still fits the fluff description of being self-propelled all the way to the target.

[DarkLink]

As I said, it was an attempt to come up with a logical explanation that explained the discrepancies we see in the description of bolts as rocket propelled and what we "observe" in the fluff. For one thing a rocket propelled bolt would generate its own light (as if they were tracer rounds) and leave an exhaust trail, neither of which has ever been mentioned (to my knowledge) even though they would have pretty significant ramifications for their use.

All of this is a moot point as plasticaddict found a citation that specifically states that bolts are conventionally launched and rocket assisted (it figures it would be in one of the only 2-3 40k books I don't have access to :(). Of course, this doesn't explain the above issues, or solve the problem of low muzzle velocity making bolters all but ineffective at point blank range, but what can you do?

Heh, I don't know if a lot of the authors think through the military and technical aspects of bolters enough for there to be much evidence one way or another.