Blaster/Lasers/Phaser = Fail

[Teaos]

A article from Cracked. I know the points been raised before but they make a good case for bullets over blasters.

We're using Star Wars here because it's the most famous and beloved example, but every self-respecting sci-fi franchise has them -- laser guns are the coolest guns ever, and in every futuristic universe where they've been invented, they've also completely replaced regular guns. We've never seen a Stormtrooper shooting a rifle -- after all, why would you bother with bullets if you have freaking lasers?

Bullets don't go nearly as well with Pink Floyd and LSD.


The Problem:
You have to understand something about the guns armies use right now: They're not designed to put a neat hole in the enemy. They're designed to create ragged, horrific wounds that bleed a lot. But like all energy weapons in the Star Wars universe, blasters do the opposite. They cauterize wounds -- that's why we never see any Stormtroopers or Rebels bleeding after being hit by those things, and why when Luke's hand got chopped off by a light saber (which presumably works the same way as blasters), it didn't turn into a Tarantino-esque bloodsplosion. That's like creating a sword that instantly disinfects and patches up any wound it creates.


And then there's the fact that they also give up your position. If you're in the middle of a war zone and shooting at your enemies from cover, it's pretty important that they don't know where you're standing so that they can't, you know, shoot back. But if you're using a Star Wars-style blaster, every single shot fired is like a big neon sign pointing in your direction. Hell, that's actually understating it -- the thick, slow-moving energy beams are a hell of a lot more visible than neon, even in broad daylight.
But almost none of that can hold a candle to the one thing that, in the real world, would render the blasters utterly useless: Laser shots appear to move much slower than bullets, or even arrows. Characters easily dodge them or deflect the beams with light sabers. We don't care if you have "Jedi reflexes" or not: If you tried that shit with a bullet, you'd soon find yourself sans hand. Also, we've seen non-Jedis dodge laser blasts, too, once while sitting three feet from the guy doing the shooting. You remember that scene, right?


Read more: http://www.cracked.com/article_20342_6- ... z2OD0h494h

Link

[Captain Seafort]

On the other hand, how many different types of ammunition does a modern army have to manufacture and transport? Even a light infantry company could have 5.56mm rifle ammo, 7.62mm GPMG, 12.7mm HMG and 40mm grenades. An armoured battlegroup would add 25 or 30mm IFV main guns, 120mm tank guns and 9mm pistols.

A blaster or phaser could have common batteries for pistols and rifles, mobile generators for GPMGs, HMGs and possibly the grenades, and run vehicle weapons off the engine. Eight types down to three. Logistics just became a lot easier. You also don't have to worry about hot brass going everywhere.

[Teaos]

Good points for the lasers. But at the end of the day I'd want the gun that makes the other guy deader.

[Captain Seafort]

Good points for the lasers. But at the end of the day I'd want the gun that makes the other guy deader.

True, but that isn't necessarily inconsistent with cauterising weapons. Look at Greedo for example. He may not have been bleeding everywhere, but neither was he in any shape to be shooting anyone, ever.

[stitch626]

Thats why TOS phasers were pretty decent. Instant removal of enemy on hit. Other issues still apply of course (along with lack of decent infantry in most of Trek).

[Teaos]

But if you miss with a phaser powerful enough to vaporize someone, your going to put a rather large hole into what ever you hit.

[Captain Seafort]

But if you miss with a phaser powerful enough to vaporize someone, your going to put a rather large hole into what ever you hit.

If you miss with a firearm you're going to make a mess of whatever you hit. If anything phasers are safer than a powerful modern weapon - I can't think of a single case of them overpenetrating, whereas an SLR has a good chance of overpentrating both through a person and the brick wall behind them.

[Teaos]

In the VOY, DS9 era phasers were so weak that people could shake off a hit so naturally they wouldnt do a lot of damage.

But the TOS era ones and the more powerful ones that we see vaporise a man would blast a heavy chunk out of what it hit, where as even a 44 would only put a hole so big into a wall.

[Captain Seafort]

But the TOS era ones and the more powerful ones that we see vaporise a man would blast a heavy chunk out of what it hit

Or it would just singe it. Look at the Horta, for example, which shrugged off phaser hits with little damage, and didn't take much bricklaying from McCoy to set it right. They've always been heavily materials-dependent, even back when Starfleet knew how to be a proper military. Even if they were dumping enough energy into a person to properly vaporise them, then that's no different from a decent sized artillery shell - you have to be careful about where you aim it.

[Mikey]

I can think of two other benefits to SF directed-energy weapons. First, the batteries/power packs seem to have a MUCH larger number of shots in them than a similarly-sized clip or magazine. Second, a blaster can't hang fire, jam, underpenetrate the primer, get the gas action fouled with carbon, get the rifling jammed with lead, etc.

[Teaos]

Second, a blaster can't hang fire, jam, underpenetrate the primer, get the gas action fouled with carbon, get the rifling jammed with lead, etc.

It can be shut down by dampening feilds and any number of other such events. And whos to say a blaster cant have faulty parts?

[Captain Seafort]

First, the batteries/power packs seem to have a MUCH larger number of shots in them than a similarly-sized clip or magazine.

So do Hollywood magazines.

Second, a blaster can't hang fire, jam, underpenetrate the primer, get the gas action fouled with carbon, get the rifling jammed with lead, etc.

True, but they they'll probably just suffer from a different series of reliability issues - cracked crystals, frayed wiring, whatever.

[Mikey]

Second, a blaster can't hang fire, jam, underpenetrate the primer, get the gas action fouled with carbon, get the rifling jammed with lead, etc.

It can be shut down by dampening feilds and any number of other such events. And whos to say a blaster cant have faulty parts?

True, but they they'll probably just suffer from a different series of reliability issues - cracked crystals, frayed wiring, whatever.

To be sure, I'm not in the camp of "blasters > slugthrowers." I was just mentioning a seeming advantage. Certainly there can be reliability issues with directed-energy weapons; there can be the same mechanical breakdown issues with firearms, plus the fact that in most types of firearm actions, the very act of usage degrades the reliability of the weapon. Firing leads to barrel fouling, and in gas-operated recoil systems the act of firing also leads to carbon buildup in the gas tube and possibly in the action as well. Hell, in any firearm with a detachable magazine, the very act of having rounds in the magazine leads to degeneration of the follower, which in turn leads to an increased chance of feed issues.

[Mikey]

So do Hollywood magazines.

Yeah, but it makes more IU sense for a blaster to be able to fire 100 shots on one power pack than for a single-stack M1911 to fire 28 rounds without a reload.

[Jim]

I do not recall seeing a blaster ever run out of ammo in Star Wars. That alone is a MAJOR reason to go with blasters over projectile weapons. Plus, no worries about punching a hole through the side of a spaceship (see: B5).