Guns in the 'Verse

POSTED BY: outlawtexan
UPDATED: Thursday, August 28, 2003 16:59
VIEWED: 8964
PAGE 1 of 4

1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE

OUTLAWTEXAN

Monday, August 18, 2003 12:51 PM

I know this subject has been done here quite a bit, but I did want to add a couple of thoughts to the subject.

One of the reasons for using cartridge firearms in Firefly that has been mentioned several times is economy, and I agree with this completely. Firearms would doubtless be cheaper than more modern -- for Firefly -- high-tech weapons, and revolvers are cheaper than automatics. Lever-action rifles -- even those cut down to be pistols -- are cheaper than semi-auto rifles. When you come right down to it, the “simpler” the weapon is, the cheaper it is.

Added to the expense of the guns themselves is the expense of ammunition. Bullets ain’t cheap. Autoloaders burn up ammo a lot faster than revolvers. Additionally, and this is largely my own opinion, revolvers require greater accuracy than autoloaders. When you only have six bullets to hit your target rather than ten to fifteen, you are much more likely to make each shot count. Granted, when involved in an extended firefight, those extra bullets are quite the advantage, but as a “standard” sidearm, the revolver does have an economic advantage.

Another issue that I think is valid is safety. A soft lead slug is much less likely to punch through a metal wall, a starship hull, for instance. Jayne’s very favorite gun “Vera” can barely penetrate Serenity’s hull, according to him. Punching a hole in a starship’s hull would, of course, be a very bad thing. Additionally, lead slugs tend to ricochet less than, say, a metal-jacketed slug, but ricochets would still be a valid concern even with lead. I would think anything that would lessen this would be a good thing.

All of these seem to me to be valid reasons why cartridge firearms would still be used in the future. My personal opinion, however, is that the real reason they are using guns, and the particular guns they are using, is purely cinematic. These weapons feel more “Western,” and while the debate can rage about how much the show is Sci-Fi and how much is Western and how much it is a wholly new genre in itself, there is meant to be a Western “feel” to it, and that means blazing six-shooters. High-tech weapons don’t really have the gritty feel that firearms do. Star Trek phasers, for instance, never really struck me as weapons at all, and this goes for most Sci-Fi hand weapons, with the notable exception of those used in the original Star Wars trilogy, which, for the most part, were modeled on real guns.

Another thought on economy is that, as props, modern-day firearms are cheaper than the alternative of making completely new weapons specifically for the show. With so much of Firefly’s budget being eaten up by CGI, it wouldn’t surprise me if the prop budget suffered for it (which could also explain the uncanny resemblance that the Fed’s armor bears to the armor in Starship Troopers. A game of “spot-the-prop,” anyone?)

JOHNNYREB

Monday, August 18, 2003 1:05 PM

All very valid points. I never gave it alot of thought, really. As for spot-the-prop, did you notice that the part that Wash hurled at the ambulance in "Ariel" was the same part that broke in "Out of Gas"? If he is just throwing it around like a discus, then I guess they really are a nothing part...until you don't have one.

Viva Firefly!

DRAKON

Tuesday, August 19, 2003 10:10 AM

Grrr!!! have not been able to connect to this site for quite some time. Don't know why.

I think you are on to something, concerning firearms. The biggest reasons why cartitridge arms would be cheaper is a matter of technology. Its simpler and lower tech. (Although I have my doubts about Mal's pistol. No cylinder for one thing and a strange pneumatic sound when he cocks it.)

And with lower tech, you get the added advantage of easy to repair/restock. Especially in a wild country far from civilization. Today there are folks who load their own cartridges with relatively cheap and easily obtained equipment. Gunpowder is a simple thing to make, (charcoal, salt peter and sulpher ?) and lead easy to cast into bullets.

In general, it is my understanding that revolvers are more accurate because they kick less. The automatic firearm uses the gas from the cartridge to reload the next one. While in a revolver, all that gas gets vented out the cylinder, sideways as well as back. Less recoil makes the weapon more accurate, especially on shots after the first one.

Saw a documentary on the History channel on the future of firearms, and showed a couple of new innovations. One was a bullet that would go through steel, yet self destruct in soft tissue. Supposedly its all done with metalurgy, but was pretty impressive. (And not a bad idea for defeating body armor. A lot of armor penetrating bullets, (as I understand it) will simply go right through soft tissue, hitting anyone behind the target as well.

The other really cool innovation they showed was a kind of electronic gun. It used caseless ammo, and loaded a series of bullets (with charges) into a barrel. Through some electronics, it exploded the charge behind the first bullet, then the second, ect. till the barrel was empty.

Mechanical firearms are limited to about 6,000 rounds a minute. This electrically fired, stacked, caseless cartridge kind of gun can spit its entire load out at a rate of 1 million rounds a minute. Or a single shot, if you so desire. Great for one opponent or a few thousand.

"my kind of stupid"

CPTBUCK25

Tuesday, August 19, 2003 4:32 PM

From practical experiance, revolvers tend to have more kick than an automatic of the same caliber. Part of this is due to the fact that most automatics use ammunition with smaller caseings and thus lighter powder loads. Also, automatics use the recoil of a shot fired to move mechanical to chamber the next round, thus redirecting some of the recoil energy away from the grip.

The design of the pistol(s) in question will also have a great effect on the amount of recoil absorbed by the person fireing. For example, a hold-out pistol or snub-nosed revolver is usually not as well balanced in weight or center of momentum than a 'full-sized' pistol of equivalent caliber. This often gives the smaller weapons more kick than their larger brethern.

As to the greater use of revolvers in FF, my favor would lie with the idea that they are simpler (ergo, cheaper) to manufacture and maintain than automatics. People use what they can find and afford.

JOHNNYREB

Tuesday, August 19, 2003 5:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:

Gunpowder is a simple thing to make, (charcoal, salt peter and sulpher ?) and lead easy to cast into bullets.

"my kind of stupid"

It was my understanding that, during the American Civil War, southern troops in Ordinance used to boil niter (salt peter) in urine that was collected from southern ladies to add the chemicals needed to make it gunpowder. I know that was an important step. There used to be a ribald nineteenth century poem about which had the greater effect on the soldier's libido, the smell of salt peter, which is supposed to curb one's sexual appetite, or the smell of his sweatheart when she pees. (Yeah, I know it's gross, but I didn't write the poem.)

And, yes, they added charcoal and sulfer to the mix. The sulfer is what gives black powder the rotten egg smell when it ignites (if you've ever smelled the smoke of a musket.)

Viva Firefly!

WHOODAHN

Tuesday, August 19, 2003 7:00 PM

Quote:

It was my understanding that, during the American Civil War, southern troops in Ordinance used to boil niter (salt peter) in urine that was collected from southern ladies to add the chemicals needed to make it gunpowder. I know that was an important step. There used to be a ribald nineteenth century poem about which had the greater effect on the soldier's libido, the smell of salt peter, which is supposed to curb one's sexual appetite, or the smell of his sweatheart when she pees. (Yeah, I know it's gross, but I didn't write the poem.)

You mean this one?

"John Harralson! John Harralson! We've read in song and story How women's tears through all the years have moistened fields of glory, But never was it told before amid such scenes of slaughter, Your southern belles dried their tears and went to making water.

No wonder that your boys are brave, who wouldn't be a fighter, If every time, he fired his gun, he used his sweetheart's nitre: And vica versa, what would make a yankee soldier madder, Than dodging bullets fired from a pretty woman's bladder?

They say there was a subtle smell that lingered in the powder, And as the smoke grew thicker and the din of battle louder, There was found to this compound one serious objection, No soldier boy did sniff the stuff without having an erection!"

JOHNNYREB

Tuesday, August 19, 2003 7:22 PM

THAT'S THE ONE! Where the hell did you find that?! It looks like I was a little off about what the poem was about, but it's all there. Boy, that brings back a memory or two. Good ole ribald nineteenth century poetry!

Viva Firefly!

JOHNNYREB

Tuesday, August 19, 2003 7:41 PM

p.s. Good show with pin pointing such an obscure reference! Wasn't there a yankee parody of this poem that was written in the form of a reply? I thought so, but it's been so long since I read them that I could hardly remember the original poem.

Viva Firefly!

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, August 19, 2003 8:54 PM

Well, thanks guys, you've just made my whole gorram day - I needed a rid crackin laugh or two, and that sure provided it!

I wasn't my gorram DVDs!!..

-frem
diefuxdie

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, August 19, 2003 8:54 PM

Well, thanks guys, you've just made my whole gorram day - I needed a rid crackin laugh or two, and that sure provided it!

I want my gorram DVDs!!..

-frem
diefuxdie

1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE