problems with the bolter. - Page 6 - Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums
40k Fluff Discuss GW background material here. All those bits in the Codex that aren't stat blocks or special rules. Post your custom character/chapter/army background in our Homebrew Fluff subforum!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #51 of 59 (permalink) Old 06-07-11, 04:02 AM
Senior Member
 
Anarkitty's Avatar
Anarkitty's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Bothell, WA
Posts: 413
Reputation: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maidel View Post
Joy.

Everyone wants to argue with me today.

So, basically it is possible.
Yep, and yep apparently.

Check out my Codex: Scions of Slaanesh (Grey Knights complete rewrite)
https://www.heresy-online.net/forums/...d.php?p=959181

And my Necromunda Escher gang project log (with lots of pictures)
https://www.heresy-online.net/forums/....php?p=1007914

In our embrace of the pleasures of the flesh we feel the embrace of the Dark Prince
She asks nothing of us but to enjoy life, and in doing so we bring glory to Him
Give up your petty faiths and morals and join us in the bosom of the Goddess of Pleasure
Anarkitty is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #52 of 59 (permalink) Old 06-07-11, 05:15 AM
Senior Member
 
Dogbeard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 123
Reputation: 1
Default

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.

Last edited by Dogbeard; 06-07-11 at 05:18 AM.
Dogbeard is offline  
post #53 of 59 (permalink) Old 12-10-12, 12:40 AM
Junior Member
 
Speedo01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3
Reputation: 1
Default

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?
Speedo01 is offline  
 
post #54 of 59 (permalink) Old 12-10-12, 08:26 AM
nice boy, daft though !
 
bitsandkits's Avatar
bitsandkits's Flag is: United Kingdom
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 10,212
Reputation: 58
Default

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.



Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!

HUGE BITZ RESTOCK NOW ON
bitsandkits is offline  
post #55 of 59 (permalink) Old 12-10-12, 08:46 AM
Senior Member
 
Iron Angel's Avatar
Iron Angel's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,271
Reputation: 14
Default

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.

Iron Angel is offline  
post #56 of 59 (permalink) Old 12-10-12, 09:49 AM
Senior Member
 
Aramoro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 7,314
Reputation: 5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CJay View Post
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.

Aramoro

"Violence isn't the answer, I just like getting it wrong on purpose"

Sally Forth! - My Gaming Blog
Aramoro is offline  
post #57 of 59 (permalink) Old 12-10-12, 09:55 AM
Banned
Magpie_Oz's Flag is: Australia
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Not every shadow, but any shadow
Posts: 7,889
Reputation: 74
Default

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.
Magpie_Oz is offline  
post #58 of 59 (permalink) Old 12-10-12, 12:03 PM
Embrace the Insanity
 
Insanity's Avatar
Insanity's Flag is: Australia
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,159
Reputation: 12
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CJay View Post
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.
Insanity is offline  
post #59 of 59 (permalink) Old 12-10-12, 12:20 PM
Banned
Magpie_Oz's Flag is: Australia
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Not every shadow, but any shadow
Posts: 7,889
Reputation: 74
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Insanity72 View Post
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.
Magpie_Oz is offline  
Reply

  Lower Navigation
Go Back   Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums > Warhammer 40K > 40k Fluff

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome