My theory about guns in Firefly
POSTED BY: Ringwraith
UPDATED: Thursday, January 2, 2003 01:21
VIEWED: 41138
PAGE 2 of 15
Quote:
Originally posted by jengel:
I like them using guns. Blowing holes into the hulls is not an issue. Any space-vessel that complex would be made of numerous hull layers, much of it cast metal of some sort. Not even .50 calibre bullets can penetrate current tank armor. And I guarantee you that spaceships need even thicker hulls than a tank.
Our current spacecraft don't have hulls anywhere as thick as a tank, though if you add some of the tiles on a shuttle to a leading edge you might come close. Tank armor can stop an incredible amount of energy. It takes a long 30mm diameter projectile made of depleted uranium or very hard and dense steel to penetrate a modern tank's frontal armor. This penetrator travels over a mile a second. Cross Reference: all sorts of shows repackaged and repeated on the History Channel.
Jeff
Who prefers a foxhole that doesn't attract so much attention. (Cross reference: "Willie and Joe" cartoons from WWII.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by DakotaSmith:
It just seems to me that given that 500 years ago the major personal weapon was the knife and that portable firearms were -- at best -- in their infancy, that it seems odd for someone 500 years in the future to be carrying a slug-chucker.
Dakota Smith
It all depends on the technology of energy storage. Right now the energy is stored in chemical form and is converted to drive a projectile at a high velocity. One of the problems with current laser weapons technology is using a Boeing 747 to lug around the generator.
I can go Deer hunting, with a Laser weapon or a .30-30 rifle.
I'll mount the laser on an Army 2 1/2 ton truck, and pull a trailer with the generator on it. I'll stop, crank up the turbine engine, and then look around for the deer, who, being sensitive herbivores will have departed for the next county at the sound of the turbine spooling up.
With the .30-30 I can climb up a tree stand and be eminently well equipped for the mission with five rounds in the rifle and five rounds in my little pocket on the right side of my jeans.
Jeff
Who notes fixed cartridge weapons have only been practical since the middle of the 1800's, starting with the .22 Short rimfire round, which has been in continuous production ever since.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by TinyTimm:
Actually, a revolver requires more skill and complex parts than a semi or full automatic. One of the simplest handguns ever made is the Glock 9mm. The Glock's complexity comes in the precise control over the shape of the plastic frame.
All I'm saying is, and I'm not a gun expert, but I meant the process and technology involved in building one; wouldn't there be more pieces involved in the manufacturing of a magazine versus a 6-shot cylinder? Plus getting all the materials and such? I had always assumed that there were less (moving) materials required to build a revolver--the weapon you mentioned that was built inside of a US prison sounds really interesting, I didn't know it could be done.
Plus there's the reliability of a revolver vs a semi-auto. Again, I mean their universe, not ours, and who has access to the better materials. Just speculating.
Thanks for your insight though. Hope I don't come across as totally ignorant.
************************************************
"How will this end?"
"In fire."
--Babylon 5, 'The Coming of Shadows'
************************************************
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Ringwraith:Quote:
Originally posted by TinyTimm:
Actually, a revolver requires more skill and complex parts than a semi or full automatic.
... wouldn't there be more pieces involved in the manufacturing of a magazine versus a 6-shot cylinder?
Plus there's the reliability of a revolver vs a semi-auto. Thanks for your insight though. Hope I don't come across as totally ignorant.
The cylinder of a typical (S&W Model 38) revolver has 11 parts, two of which, the extractor and cylinder require very close tolerance machining.
The five chambers and the extractor must be carefully bored to form five chambers aligned to thousanths of an inch.
A magazine has four pieces, spring, body, follower and base plate, everything except the spring is stamped out of steel, the body folded and welded, then place in a fixture and the lips ground to spec.
Jeff
Who was trained to repair the Model 10 S&W revolver and the M 1911A1 Colt Automatic.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Now that I've dragged out my copy of "The Gun Digest Book of Exploded Firearms Drawings" which has nothing to do with exploding firearms.
For your edification: The Colt Peacemaker Single Action Army Revolver 1873 has 53 parts, including 7 washers.
The Colt M1911A1 Army Automatic has 55 parts, including one magazine with three parts.
A Winchester 1894 lever action carbine has 65 parts.
The British bolt action, Lee Enfield Rifle No. 4, Mark I* has 47 parts (I tossed this one in for our Commonwealth friends)
The Savage Single barrel Model 944 break action shotgun has 28 parts. Similar guns sell at Wal*Mart for around $100 US.
I note we have available today mass produced rifles and pistols originally designed over the last 300 years, from flintlocks to Semi-auto pistols and rifles.
Jeff
Who suspects serious breakdowns in the supply system in the Firefly Universe.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by TinyTimm:
The cylinder of a typical (S&W Model 38) revolver has 11 parts, two of which, the extractor and cylinder require very close tolerance machining.
The five chambers and the extractor must be carefully bored to form five chambers aligned to thousanths of an inch.
A magazine has four pieces, spring, body, follower and base plate, everything except the spring is stamped out of steel, the body folded and welded, then place in a fixture and the lips ground to spec.
Thanks Jeff! I didn't realize it was as "simple" to make the semi vs the revolver. You surprised the missus and myself but that's a good thing.
I think in a post somewhere you mentioned that you were going to go over the FF episode to try to identify some of the weapons (even though to me some look like bastardized versions) so I'm just wondering if you had a chance to yet. I think this show will be more interesting than most, since they have technology to build fancy ships and floating trains but they still use weapons that fire a piece of lead.
No problem here, though.I'll have to talk to Haken and see if we can get you an official title like "Firefly Fans Weapons Expert." Sorry, you probably won't get paid, though.
************************************************
"How will this end?"
"In fire."
--Babylon 5, 'The Coming of Shadows'
************************************************
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Ringwraith:
I'll have to talk to Haken and see if we can get you an official title like "Firefly Fans Weapons Expert." Sorry, you probably won't get paid, though.
Oh Joss! Not That! I'll have to replace my pic with the one of me with the 20 gallon hat and the .44 Magnum!
Jeff
Who is famous for getting a picture in a nationally distributed book, showing only his back, knit hat and hearing protection.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by TinyTimm:
It all depends on the technology of energy storage.
I completely agree, which is part of wht I think slug-chuckers are inconsistent with an interstellar technology.
Quote:
Right now the energy is stored in chemical form and is converted to drive a projectile at a high velocity. One of the problems with current laser weapons technology is using a Boeing 747 to lug around the generator.
True, but the same is true of space travel.
Look, it took a 20-story building loaded with rocket fuel to put two men on the moon (and one in orbit of it).
The Serenity, by comparison, is an interstellar spacecraft -- meaning she's got enough energy to go faster than light, carrying a small crew, passengers, cargo, and so forth. Yet she's not even as long as a passenger train.
Nor did we see Serenity need to refuel, which implies that her power source is long-lived or regenerating.
So scale this down a bit: if a vessel the size of Serenity can go FTL with no problems, why can't a battery pack that would fit into the handle of, say, a M1911-sized grip not fire off at least ten shots of directed energy?
To me, the inconsistency is that any FTL civiliation that doesn't have a hideously huge power supply means that they've got some way to generate a lot of power in a very small space. If that's the case, why can't they do it with handheld battery packs?
Quote:
Who notes fixed cartridge weapons have only been practical since the middle of the 1800's, starting with the .22 Short rimfire round, which has been in continuous production ever since.
Indeed, which hints at the possibilities.
A technological society that went from flintlocks to cartriges to experimental (very fixed) laser, particle beams, and magnetic weapons in under 200 years. Why, then, would there be no significant development in weapons in the next 500 years?
Dakota Smith
No human being has the right -- under any circumstances -- to initiate force against another human being, nor to advocate or delegate its initiation.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Haplo721:
Dakota, I invite you to think of a hand weapon that's both superior to a firearm, and not insanely expensive/complicated. I don't think you can though.
I can do it with a couple of "givens":
Given:
1. 500 years to tinker.
2. A technology capable of producing small interstellar FTL spacecraft.
Given this, I can imagine quite a lot of thinks superior to a slug-chucker. Here are a couple of notions regarding a directed energy weapon:
o No moving parts. This is a wonderful thing, particularly on the battlefield, where guns can become fouled and fail to operate. With a directed energy weapon, there's no round to feed, no slide, no hammer to be cocked (in the case of a revolver). Even the trigger mechanism can be electronic -- something that Remington actually has on the market in one of their rifles.
Moving parts suck. The more you have, the greater a potential for failure.
o No limit to range. A slug-chucker is limited by all kinds of things. My Kimber Custom Classic, for example, has an effective range of a bit over a hundred yards, because it becomes difficult to predict bullet drop beyond that range. A laser has no such limitiation -- line the target up in the sites at 10 yards or 100 yards. There's no reason to take into account weather conditions, either -- a laser's going to fire straight unless it comes within the influence of a massive gravitational field on the order of a star.
o No recoil. My carry gun is a Taurus M917 revolver in .357Magnum. This gun has a 3" barrel and is a small frame, and let me tell you: it kicks. I absolutely won't carry anything more anemic for personal defense, but if I could get the same stopping power with a bolt of directed energy, I'd take it in a heartbeat.
o No sound. Contrary to what they show you on TV, guns are loud. I typically fire seven rounds through my Taurus M917 on an outdoor range, on the theory that if I ever have to use it to defend myself, I won't have time to get hearing protection. My ears ring for two hours afterward.
And I never fire them without hearing protection at an indoor range, because I'll be half deaf for hours.
Now, during the heat of the moment, adrenaline does something to deaden your hearing to loud noises. On a couple of occasions, I've had to finish a buck with my Kimber because a badly-placed shot from my Winchester Model 70 rifle didn't do the job. While loud, the noise isn't as bad when I'm shooting calmly at the range.
However, if I could get the same stopping power in a silent weapon, I'd happily do it.
o No need for cartriges. This is the one that really appeals to me. The "ammo" of a directed energy weapon is its power source: in this case, probably a rechargable battery the size of a M1911 clip. If I didn't have to carry around all kinds of ammo cans, I'd be one happy camper. Bring my carry gun home, drop the day's battery into the charger, replace it with a fresh one, and reholster the weapon. Sounds like heaven to me.
Dakota Smith
No human being has the right -- under any circumstances -- to initiate force against another human being, nor to advocate or delegate its initiation.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by DakotaSmith:
2. A technology capable of producing small interstellar FTL spacecraft.
I believe it is implied (if it hasn't been stated directly) that FTL space travel does not exist in Firefly.
--Dylan Palmer, aka NoVaGrAsS--
"Oh, shoot" - Mal
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME