Blasters: why?

[Ockham's Spoon]

So the blaster pistol is a staple of SF weaponry, because basically it is cool. But even if you have the rubber science to provide high energy density batteries of some sort to power them, blaster pistols aren't very practical compared to slug throwers. Slug throwers are cheap, less complex, and brutally effective. They might even be more effective than a blaster; I'd wager that a large caliber bullet wound could do a lot more damage due to hydrostatic shock and internal bleeding than just burning a dime-sized hole through someone.

 

But blasters are so cool. So I am looking for a list of reasons why a SF society would use them in favor of bullets. I have come up with a few ideas, none of which by itself I find exceptionally compelling, but maybe in aggragate they could work. Can anyone expand on this list?

 

1. Blasters have no recoil and so are more accurate.

 

2. Blasters run on energy, but in the far-flung reaches of the galaxy people will still have energy generators while they might not have a munitions factory. In a similar vein, all energy weapons run on energy, while different types of guns require different bullets, so blasters don't have to worry about compatibility so much.

 

3. Bullets are heavy, and weight is a major consideration for space travel.

 

4. Spaceships and spacestations have extra energy shielding to protect from radiation, so you can "safely" fire a blaster while on-board, whereas a bullet might result in a hull breach.

 

Any other ideas?

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

5. Assuming minimal atmospheric scattering, blasters are line-of-sight to the target -- no need to compensate for wind for precision shooting. That might also be reflected in greater effective range.

 

6. A blaster might be conceived as having a non-lethal setting. Solid projectiles, not so much.

 

7. A blaster's power-pack could be recharged from any compatible energy source. Projectiles come in limited numbers.

[Christopher]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

8. It might be easier to switch batteris between 3 dozen Models of Blaster Pistols - al with different hitting power - than switchting bullets between gun with different callibers.

 

9. I could be that armor somehow got very effective against slug throwers (you need to build you ships to withstand hig speed debris during high-speed flight with as low as possible weight), but not so much against blasters.

[Christopher]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

I repharse 8 totally:

A slug throwers properties could be to 90% defiend by the bullet.

A Blasters Properties could be to 90% defined by the Blaster.

[Ternaugh]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

Blasters often have a "Stun" setting, which allows for less lethal confrontations (especially when used against the PCs).

 

JoeG

[Nevelon]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

Don't have to worry about ricochets.

 

No spent brass, or bullets that can be traced with ballistics labs.

 

Can be fired in any environment.

 

Posible variable settings (focused for AP, Wide for +to hit, stun)

[Christopher]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

Can be fired in any environment.

You can't fire them underwatter, while we have underwatter rilfes since 1970:

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

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

 

And it get's even better when you move away from using Blackpowder, and start using railguns with a micro energiesource in the bullet.

You could even make a gun that way, that can fire in areas with danger of explosion without danger.

[Shadow Hawk]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

10. No recoil, important in a microgravity enviorment.

 

11. Stun setting has been mentioned, but could there be other settings? Star Trek phasers were used as cutting torches, to heat rocks for warmth, broad beam stun effects...

[Christopher]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

11. Stun setting has been mentioned' date=' but could there be other settings? Star Trek phasers were used as cutting torches, to heat rocks for warmth, broad beam stun effects...[/quote']

Sometimes to tunnel/varporize big amounts of rock (and I talk about one of the cobrahead phaser, not a Rifle).

 

You could sell weapons that are limited to stun, a good alternative for personal defense (both Star Wars D6 RPG and Technical Manual for teh Enterprise listed small phasers with Stun-Only).

[Christopher]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

12. It's propably easier to scale the technology. Blaster in Star Wars exists in sizes from Stun Only Miniblaster to Deathstar Superweapon.

Phaser go from really small Type 1 to Ship and Planet based Versions The same is true for other Star Trek Races "signature" weapons.

[Kraven Kor]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

Could be, depending on the nature of the 'blaster' in question, that ethical reasons might apply. If a blaster can be set to either stun or "insta-kill" it might be seen as more humane than slug throwers.

 

If the setting has any type of incorporeal creatures or creatures with no real discernible anatomy, etc., it might be slug throwers just don't kill the bad guys as well as a blaster.

 

If the setting has telekinesis or "kinetic shielding" or whatnot, it might be that blasters are the only way to work around the issue.

[Kraven Kor]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

Also, gunpowder based slug-throwers won't work in a vacuum - "Vera needs oxygen to breath"

[Christopher]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

If the setting has any type of incorporeal creatures or creatures with no real discernible anatomy' date=' etc., it might be slug throwers just don't kill the bad guys as well as a blaster.[/quote']

Or what if the (intelligent) bug-aliens have really, really hard chitin armors that are weak vs. plasma/energy?

[Sundog]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

Also' date=' gunpowder based slug-throwers won't work in a vacuum - "Vera needs oxygen to breath" [/quote']

 

Untrue. And one of the relatively few areas where Joss Whedon got it wrong. Modern cartridges are air-tight - they carry their own oxidizer. Provided you can overcome thermal problems (brittling of the metal due to extreme cold, overheating and gang-firing due to solar exposure) modern firearms should fire just fine in vacuum.

However, in microgravity, the recoil of a slugthrower (ANY slugthrower - magnetic accelerators definitely included) will start you moving - and worse, spinning, unless you're careful to centre the weapon on your centre of mass. Energy weapons, with limited to no effective recoil, can avoid that.

[Ockham's Spoon]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

Thanks everyone for the feedback. I should clarify that I am thinking specifically of personal weapons. Starships are going to use energy weapons or guided missiles because when you are moving at hundreds of meters per second and the distance to your target is measured in kilometers, bullets are just too slow.

 

I like the versatility arguments, both ethical and practical, although I suppose that depends on the nature of the blaster. A laser pistol is probably not going to be set to stun, but an electron beam might, although either could be used for welding or some such.

[Clonus]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

Also' date=' gunpowder based slug-throwers won't work in a vacuum - "Vera needs oxygen to breath" [/quote']

 

That'll work as long as the players don't know anything about the subject. (Bullets actually contain an oxidiser in their cartridge and work fine in space.)

[Christopher]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

I should clarify that I am thinking specifically of personal weapons. Starships are going to use energy weapons or guided missiles because when you are moving at hundreds of meters per second and the distance to your target is measured in kilometers' date=' bullets are just too slow.[/quote']

I actually think that using those weapon on a ship scale "helps" in using the same weapon on a personal scale. In fact most sci-fi settings I know tend to give ships and persons the same "type" of weapon:

Mass Effect had Mass Effect Mass Drivers for both (note that 0-Recoil Drivers are possible for them).

Star Wars has Blaster for both

Star Trek has Phaser/Disruptors/Plasma Pulse Weapons for both

I guess hard SciFi tends to Laser for both, or a Laser/Conventional Weapon mix for both.

 

Usually we even start with the big weapons (canons) until we can miniaturize them down to person (musket) or pistol scale.

We see it right now with the development of lasers:

The target is a laser tank/ground based laser canon, not a personal laser gun.

 

About Vera:

Then how about Vera II, a massdriver that draws energy from a battery pack (we do have super-batteries when we have lasers) or mirco-battery inside the bullet (a realy small super-battery). She can fire in vacuum and underwatter (with the right amunition, wich we can make since 1970).

[Christopher]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

Usually we even start with the big weapons (canons) until we can miniaturize them down to person (musket) or pistol scale.

We see it right now with the development of lasers:

The target is a laser tank/ground based laser canon, not a personal laser gun.

I found even a way older example, perhaps the oldest:

Balista and Crossbow.

The first Balista (the Bolt-thrower, not the stoen thrower variant) came before the first crossbow.

[lemming]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

You can't fire them underwatter, while we have underwatter rilfes since 1970:

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

 

Why can't a blaster fire underwater? We're talking pseudo-science.

[Kraven Kor]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

Probably some blasters could, but most 'blasters' seem to fire a type of energy that burns its target. I would imagine the blaster bolt would just boil away some water and dissipate in a very short distance.

 

Even the underwater rifles have very limited effective range - the bullet loses velocity much quicker in water than in air.

[Tasha]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

Perhaps they have some sort of super battery that allows the Blaster shoot many many more time between charges than a firearm. (ie saving weight).

 

Also it seems like Blasters themselves may be much lighter to carry than any Firearm. Again when using a weapon for war lighter is better.

 

Also there may not be any effective personal body armor that works vs Blasters. While the tech for Personal body armor vs Projectile weapons may have rendered them more or less obsolete as a tool of war.

 

As you can probably tell, I always assumed that the movement to Energy Weapons was caused by the need to overcome modern body armors. Eventually the weight of the Energy weapons comes down, reliability goes up, as does penetration and damage. The ability for energy weapons to be used to knockout targets without killing them would guarantee them replacing the weapons that Police forces use.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

potentially, energy weapons can offer a lot more advantages than projectile weaponry once one is able to get past their obvious limitations.

 

1: Energy weapons fire at near the speed of light (lasers firing at the speed of light) meaning long distance fire (especially in space) is somewhat easier than for projectile weapons. (provided that LOS is maintained)

2: Energy weapons do not require ammunition and sufficiently advanced energy weapons may not even need batteries (aka "E-clips") being able to use the nano-tech anti-matter generator built into the gun to recharge itself with. This would likely be the biggest advantage energy weapons have over projectile weapons.

3: Advanced energy weapons would be able to vary the output of the beam they emit and thus be capable of vastly varying the damage they produce. Perhaps the minimum setting is simply a "Stun" setting that acts similar to a Taser and the maximum setting is capable of burning a hole through Tank-grade armor (but draining the battery completely with 1 shot).

4: Assuming efficient batteries and materials able to withstand the heat build-up, energy weapons would be able to maintain frightening recycle times, creating "Machine gun blasters" capable of firing dozens of rounds per second, hundreds (perhaps thousands) of rounds per minute and all with little to no recoil. Going even further, beam weapons would be able to create a continuous beam which could be swung to cut through dozens of attackers simultaneously. (very indiscriminate though...be careful of collateral damage)

 

The main reason though, is that Blasters are just plain cool. What other reasoning do we need? I say none. "Blasters" are a staple of science-fiction...even some Sci-fi that hold to a more realistic portrayal of physics. We all know for a fact that at some point, Lasers will be a common weapon on the battlefield...it's just a matter of when more than a matter of if. If the Laser is successful as a man-portable weapon, other energy based weapons will follow in its wake. It's just unlikely that any of us will be around to see this trend.

[Christopher]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

Why can't a blaster fire underwater? We're talking pseudo-science.

Because watter is good in one, important thing: Absobing and conducting thermal energy. The only way to prevent that is to not have contact with watter in the First palce.

 

Even the underwater rifles have very limited effective range - the bullet loses velocity much quicker in water than in air.

That was only the first underwatter rifle and it already had 30 m Range - wich is well within LOS for you average Spetznatz Combat Diver durign night missions.

There are otehr underwatter Firearms:

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

 

And they will get really good once we develop how to use Super-Cavitation effects for such small weapons:

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

Super-Cavitation solves the problem of "not having contact with watter", while moving through it.

[ClassifiedTSBBR]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

Because watter is good in one, important thing: Absobing and conducting thermal energy. The only way to prevent that is to not have contact with watter in the First palce.

And they will get really good once we develop how to use Super-Cavitation effects for such small weapons:

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

Super-Cavitation solves the problem of "not having contact with watter", while moving through it.

 

Yeah, but wouldn't the principles involved in supercavitation potentially also apply to plasma weapons (since I doubt there would be a much easier method of generating a fast-moving plasma bubble in a fluid than to inject a fast-moving plasma bubble into it)?

[Christopher]

Re: Blasters: why?

 

Yeah' date=' but wouldn't the principles involved in supercavitation potentially also apply to plasma weapons (since I doubt there would be a much easier method of generating a fast-moving plasma bubble in a fluid than to inject a fast-moving plasma bubble into it)?[/quote']

Well, I only know one gameseries that features energy weaposn underwatter:

AquaNox.

They use lasers in the Blue/UV Spectrum as main Energy Weapon.

For Plasma or Particle Weapons, they first fire a laser to make a chanel of varporized watter, then fire the plasma/particle beam through said channel (in so short sequence, you only see teh plasma-sphere in game).

 

I think physical projectiles just have it way easier in that matter.