Future Guns: Projectile Obsolete?

[Asperion]

In most SF programs it seems as though any ranged weapon will use some form of energy - be it laser, sonic, plasma, or some fancy sf energy. With only a few rare exceptions (ala Firefly) will this standard mold be broken. Even in such programs as Firefly, they have their energy weapons (they just do not play a major role). With this in mind I got wondering, is the future of modern projectile weapons limited? Are projectile weapons doomed to extinction, or is there some possible future with projectile weapons?

[ClassifiedTSBBR]

Re: Future Guns: Projectile Obsolete?

 

I suspect two reasons SF TV & Movies are so heavily into energy-based weapons are (1) they look "Futuristic", (2) filming doesn't include the dangers of firing blanks from an actual weapon...

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Future Guns: Projectile Obsolete?

 

Any hard SF setting will likely continue to feature projectile weapons, as they have a lot of significant advantages concerning kinetic energy transfer, penetration, and the like, to counteract the problems they suffer with range (at ship to ship levels, anyway).

As power density capabilities increase with technical advances, either projectile weapons will follow the materials tech curve or will move to using energy directly to shove the projectiles (Railguns & plasma-fired projectiles are a couple examples of this)

 

Improved technology will mean higher energy density propellants/explosives (said improved chemistry also improves the ability for projectiles to carry other payloads, like functional explosive warheads, ALA Aliens or modern BSG) which could lead to similar results with much smaller rounds, or similar sized rounds with a lot more punch, as well as better barrels and actions to handle higher pressure loads.

 

Projectile weapons get more and more impressive as you improve the velocity. Relativistic kinetic kill weapons are about the scariest WMD we've managed to dream up, at the upper end equal in power density to it's own weight in anti-matter

[Xavier Onassiss]

Re: Future Guns: Projectile Obsolete?

 

It's just a hollywood trope that's pretty deep into "cliche" territory. In other words, bad writing.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Future Guns: Projectile Obsolete?

 

That being said, a ultra high tech projectile weapon is gonna probably have several beam type functions built in. a boresight laser can act as a target designator, a rangefinger, can paint a target to achieve a computer target lock for guided munitions, and can be used to burn a collapsing vacuum tunnel through atmosphere that could be used to greatly increase the maximum effective velocity a projectile can reach, while the same burn through pulse could also be used in a secondary role to direct an electron discharge as a sub-lethal attack. Using a plasma reaction to provide constant high pressure thrust down the length of the barrel would allow for some WICKED high velocities in this fashion. Hypersonic iridium penetrators would be no joke.

Edit: Note, that to have the plasma chamber, you're already gonna be packing some serious laser wattage, so the accessory functions are almost trivial design additions

[tkdguy]

Re: Future Guns: Projectile Obsolete?

 

My sci-fi campaign uses projectile weapons rather than beam weapons, both in starship combat and personal combat.

 

I am aware of the military's experiments with lasers, but I decided they were too cliche for my tastes, which is why I dropped them.

[Toadmaster]

Re: Future Guns: Projectile Obsolete?

 

One of the things I liked with Traveller 2300 was their use of projectile weapons. In particular the use of binary propellents which gave them a very high tech feel while also being practical and not being too Space opera. Magazines held the projectiles and one of the gasses, the weapon held a cartridge with a second gas. When a bullet was chambered the two gasses combined in the chamber becoming an explosive just waiting for the ignition spark from the trigger. Binary propellent weapons have several advantages over our current tech, they are completely safe when stored (no flammable / explosive propellent) unless the projectile has a secondary effect, they are caseless (less weight, one less step for the gun since it doesn't have to eject a case, and no need for an opening to eject the case which is also an opening for dirt), the velocity can be adjusted easily by changing how much gas is injected and the ammo can be more easily controlled (only 1/2 the binary propellent is kept in the magazine, the other gas is kept in the gun / spare cylinders).

 

The other common sci-fi projectile weapon is the gauss or rail gun (electro-magnetically propelled projectile).

 

While neither of thise are currently practical as a small arm, they have been successfully demonstrated in larger size weapons (cannon), so they are very beleivable for a hard science sci-fi game set in the fairly near future (50-100 years+).

[Toadmaster]

Re: Future Guns: Projectile Obsolete?

 

Duplicate

[Escafarc]

Re: Future Guns: Projectile Obsolete?

 

One of the things I liked with Traveller 2300 was their use of projectile weapons. In particular the use of binary propellents which gave them a very high tech feel while also being practical and not being too Space opera. Magazines held the projectiles and one of the gasses, the weapon held a cartridge with a second gas. When a bullet was chambered the two gasses combined in the chamber becoming an explosive just waiting for the ignition spark from the trigger. Binary propellent weapons have several advantages over our current tech, they are completely safe when stored (no flammable / explosive propellent) unless the projectile has a secondary effect, they are caseless (less weight, one less step for the gun since it doesn't have to eject a case, and no need for an opening to eject the case which is also an opening for dirt), the velocity can be adjusted easily by changing how much gas is injected and the ammo can be more easily controlled (only 1/2 the binary propellent is kept in the magazine, the other gas is kept in the gun / spare cylinders).

 

The other common sci-fi projectile weapon is the gauss or rail gun (electro-magnetically propelled projectile).

 

While neither of thise are currently practical as a small arm, they have been successfully demonstrated in larger size weapons (cannon), so they are very beleivable for a hard science sci-fi game set in the fairly near future (50-100 years+).

 

In the Honorverse books they still use projectile weapons they use gravity instead of electro-magnetic though (and chemical propellant for dueling weapons).

[Christougher]

Re: Future Guns: Projectile Obsolete?

 

For my Master of Orion Hero setting, I made certain that projectiles were still relevant and different by instituting a simple universal rule. Physical weapons were twice as effective against shields compared to energy weapons. Of course, the reverse being true for physical armors (energy weapons twice as effective) kept the arms race interesting.

 

Chris.

[Toadmaster]

Re: Future Guns: Projectile Obsolete?

 

I think another reason for the preference of energy weapons in sci-fi movies / TV is the taint of guns. Lasers, blasters and such are largely fantasy, they go woo woo, and shoot perdy colorful light instead of going bang bang. The target tends to just fall down, or maybe just vanishes instead of getting holes in them and bleeding on stuff.

 

I think it really comes down some people feeling that showing killing with laser guns is less violent that killing with guns that resemble those in the real world. GI Joe was a kids show, nobody could hit the broad side of the barn and they used lasers. The A team, nobody could hit the broad side of a barn either but they used real looking guns, the A team was considered too violent for children and had to be shown in the later family time reserved for adults and older children.

[tkdguy]

Re: Future Guns: Projectile Obsolete?

 

One of the things I liked with Traveller 2300 was their use of projectile weapons. In particular the use of binary propellents which gave them a very high tech feel while also being practical and not being too Space opera. Magazines held the projectiles and one of the gasses, the weapon held a cartridge with a second gas. When a bullet was chambered the two gasses combined in the chamber becoming an explosive just waiting for the ignition spark from the trigger. Binary propellent weapons have several advantages over our current tech, they are completely safe when stored (no flammable / explosive propellent) unless the projectile has a secondary effect, they are caseless (less weight, one less step for the gun since it doesn't have to eject a case, and no need for an opening to eject the case which is also an opening for dirt), the velocity can be adjusted easily by changing how much gas is injected and the ammo can be more easily controlled (only 1/2 the binary propellent is kept in the magazine, the other gas is kept in the gun / spare cylinders).

 

The other common sci-fi projectile weapon is the gauss or rail gun (electro-magnetically propelled projectile).

 

While neither of thise are currently practical as a small arm, they have been successfully demonstrated in larger size weapons (cannon), so they are very beleivable for a hard science sci-fi game set in the fairly near future (50-100 years+).

 

I have the Traveller 2300 rules, and I've been rereading them. I decided to swipe those guns for my campaign a long time ago.

[Clonus]

Re: Future Guns: Projectile Obsolete?

 

In most SF programs it seems as though any ranged weapon will use some form of energy - be it laser' date=' sonic, plasma, or some fancy sf energy. With only a few rare exceptions (ala Firefly) will this standard mold be broken. Even in such programs as Firefly, they have their energy weapons (they just do not play a major role). With this in mind I got wondering, is the future of modern projectile weapons limited? Are projectile weapons doomed to extinction, or is there some possible future with projectile weapons?[/quote']

 

THe zap guns are because they get a lot less hassle about violence when it's particularly unreal.

[Old Man]

Re: Future Guns: Projectile Obsolete?

 

IRL projectile weapons aren't going anywhere. There are promising developments in directed energy weapons, especially solid state lasers, but projectiles continue to improve. Indeed, there have been equally promising developments with railgun tech.

[tkdguy]

Re: Future Guns: Projectile Obsolete?

 

Some rpgs have their share of projectile weapons. Shadowrun uses them, since it's a near-future setting despite its fantasy trappings. Traveller always had them, even though there were a couple of lasers as well. Star Frontiers had some, mainly gyrojets and needlers, although they had automatic weapons as well.

 

Pity railguns aren't included in more games. They rock!

[Escafarc]

Re: Future Guns: Projectile Obsolete?

 

Spacemaster had them. The MLA Rifle was very effective.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Future Guns: Projectile Obsolete?

 

In my SF universe I have quite a few of both . Variety is the spice of life. Advanced combat rifles, rocket guns, gauss rifles, laser rifles, blasters. plasma pulse rifles, etc. all have their niche and use by different folks

[Old Man]

Re: Future Guns: Projectile Obsolete?

 

Spacemaster had them. The MLA Rifle was very effective.

 

I remember those! Yeah, the MLA Rifle was almost a no-brainer compared to most of the other weapons.

[Xavier Onassiss]

Re: Future Guns: Projectile Obsolete?

 

I tend to see the advance of technology as a process of adding options just as often as replacing them. Matchlock and flintlock firearms have gone out of use (except for hobbyists and re-enactors), replaced by more advanced alternatives. But smooth-bore barrels are much older than rifled barrels, and they haven't gone away - shotguns are still quite popular. Old-style revolvers haven't been completely replaced by more modern "automatic" pistols, either. Both are still in wide use.

 

Future firearms are, IMHO, likely to follow this trend. There will be new types of slug-throwers: binary propellants, electro-thermal/chemical, magnetic railguns, whatever. Railguns seem to come out on top in most of the comparisons I've seen. I tend to think that, due to their expense, railguns won't completely supplant all the other types; one or more of the others (binary, ETC, or gunpowder) will remain as lower-cost alternatives.

 

Most of the "realistic" energy weapons designs I've seen were built for very specific applications; I think they're likely to remain that way for at least the near term. "Treknobabble" notwithstanding*, you can't re-task an energy weapon by loading it with a different type of ammo, which is a huge advantage for projectile weapons.

 

 

 

 

*Yes, I know Trek had a single energy weapon which could somehow both stun AND disintegrate, and do whatever else the scriptwriter needed it to, including quit working for no reason if a disintegrator ray would spoil the plot. This isn't bad writing - it's abysmally awful writing!

[Diamond Spear]

Re: Future Guns: Projectile Obsolete?

 

Lots of David Drake books have projectile weapons. The Lt. Leary setting comes to mind as does the book: Redliners which has some really neat weapons all around as well as being a really good book in general.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Future Guns: Projectile Obsolete?

 

Lots of David Drake books have projectile weapons. The Lt. Leary setting comes to mind as does the book: Redliners which has some really neat weapons all around as well as being a really good book in general.

 

Yeah, Drake is pretty good with weapons design. He even came up with a good solid background for his unobtanium that made Powerguns work, which is the right way to do it... design up from base assumptions.

[esampson]

Re: Future Guns: Projectile Obsolete?

 

So here's the basic situation; for a new weapon to replace an old weapon it has to offer an advantage over the old weapon.

 

Now this is a little tricky because a lot of times the new weapon when it first evolves may be overall inferior. Crossbows were in many ways inferior to longbows, cannons were in many ways inferior to trebuchets. However in each case the new weapon had some kind of advantage that was significant enough that they were worth the drawbacks they came with. In the case of the crossbow it was vastly easier to learn to use. In the case of the cannon it had massive psychological impact.

 

If a new weapon doesn't offer some kind of advantage over, or is at least equal to, its predecessor there's no reason for people to switch over to it. You'll always have edge cases, of course, where people are using something because of personal interest but real implementation won't exist.

 

To put it in other terms which weapon would your character arm themselves with, a 2d6+1 assault rifle or a 2d6 laser rifle with otherwise identical characteristics?

 

Now here's the thing, chemically propelled firearms are relatively easy to use, fairly inexpensive, generally reliable, and are rather good at making people dead.

 

Expense is largely a result of manufacturing processes. Until your production of future weapons (lasers, railguns, caseless ammo, etc.) is roughly on par with your production of common chemically propelled firearms it isn't likely that the costs will become equivalent. That means that at the beginning they are going to cost more than conventional firearms, probably by a good margin.

 

So if the cost is initially higher then the weapon would need to be superior in one of the other categories just to get to the point where you start getting enough adoption for manufacturing to ramp up and drive the price down. That means it's going to have to be either easier to use, more reliable, or better at making people dead, and not by just a little bit but by a good margin because its got the cost hanging over it as a negative.

 

However, currently guns are pretty good at all those categories, so its going to be unlikely that a new weapon will be developed that has a clear advantage in any of those categories anytime soon. You might see some special cases such as sniping weapons since a laser weapon has some clear advantages over a projectile weapon at extreme ranges (which falls under the 'easier to use' category to my thinking) but for the down and dirty fighting that most guns are meant for you're going to be hard pressed to demonstrate a clear advantage in any area.

[Christopher]

Re: Future Guns: Projectile Obsolete?

 

I tend to see the advance of technology as a process of adding options just as often as replacing them. Matchlock and flintlock firearms have gone out of use (except for hobbyists and re-enactors), replaced by more advanced alternatives. But smooth-bore barrels are much older than rifled barrels, and they haven't gone away - shotguns are still quite popular. Old-style revolvers haven't been completely replaced by more modern "automatic" pistols, either. Both are still in wide use.

 

Future firearms are, IMHO, likely to follow this trend. There will be new types of slug-throwers: binary propellants, electro-thermal/chemical, magnetic railguns, whatever. Railguns seem to come out on top in most of the comparisons I've seen. I tend to think that, due to their expense, railguns won't completely supplant all the other types; one or more of the others (binary, ETC, or gunpowder) will remain as lower-cost alternatives.

 

Most of the "realistic" energy weapons designs I've seen were built for very specific applications; I think they're likely to remain that way for at least the near term. "Treknobabble" notwithstanding*, you can't re-task an energy weapon by loading it with a different type of ammo, which is a huge advantage for projectile weapons.

 

*Yes, I know Trek had a single energy weapon which could somehow both stun AND disintegrate, and do whatever else the scriptwriter needed it to, including quit working for no reason if a disintegrator ray would spoil the plot. This isn't bad writing - it's abysmally awful writing!

Right now the limiting factor of Slug-throwers is the propellant. A bullet can't go faster than the speed of sound in the propelling explosion.

Railguns do not have this limit. They however might hit a different one: recoil.

 

The faster you propell something (and the shorter the distance over wich you accelerate it), the stronger the force working on whoever holds the gun.

Man-protable Railguns might simply be too strong for thier wielders (even if you factor in power armor). And when you can built man-portable railguns, man portable lasers (or other energy weapons) should not be that far anymore.

 

Mass Effect mostly used railguns working on the plebotium "Element zero" and the "Mass Effect". Thier personal Railguns use mass-effect both to increase the impact power (by reducign the mass of the slug in the barrel) and reduce the recoil.

They also use Mass-Effect fields as protection from those slugs (kinetic barriers).

The few lasers in this setting have one distinct advantage: They ignore conventional defenses. The armors and kinetic barriers provide no protection at all.

[esampson]

Re: Future Guns: Projectile Obsolete?

 

Right now the limiting factor of Slug-throwers is the propellant. A bullet can't go faster than the speed of sound in the propelling explosion.

Railguns do not have this limit. They however might hit a different one: recoil. . .

Most rifle bullets travel faster than the speed of sound. The M40A1 for instance has a muzzle velocity of about 1750 mile per hour or 2.4x the speed of sound. Railguns do, however, seem to offer higher speeds.

 

In the case of your average man-portable weapon though I'm not that sure its that big a deal. Yes, ultimately it is more desirable to have the higher muzzle velocity but the final effect winds up being only a marginal improvement. If a conventional firearm has a 90% chance of rendering an opponent incapable of continuing combat (which I admit is just a number I'm pulling out of the air) then even under the best case scenario a railgun would only offer a little over 10% advantage for incapacitating an opponent.

 

The other advantages of a higher speed are probably only marginal in general combat conditions. While the railgun might have a better range in a general firefight the weak point would be the ability of the soldier to aim effectively. Of course there are going to be edge cases such as snipers where that better range might make a real difference but edge cases aren't what will generally propel development.

[Christopher]

Re: Future Guns: Projectile Obsolete?

 

Most rifle bullets travel faster than the speed of sound.

Speed of sound in the earth atmosphere.

The speed of sound varries greatly on the medium. It is 4 times faster in the water, for example.

 

I clearly stated "speed of sound in the propelling explosion".