Let's Equip Starfleet Security

[Mikey]

Isn't a Glock 17 a 9mm pistol? Unless it's rechambered for the .357SIG, you better hope they're charging from far enough away to get at least half a clip downrange into each one.

[Mark]

Good point. A 9mm may only piss off a charging Klingon.

[Deepcrush]

Frak the 9mm. Take the 1911 and split some skulls. Those .45s can shatter concrete bricks! Freaked me out the first time I saw it.

[kostmayer]

Good point. A 9mm may only piss off a charging Klingon.

How about a few Pikemen?

Or perhaps a little (but not much) more seriously, giving Starfleet Security one of those extending sword thingies that Sulu had in Star Trek XI?

[Mikey]

That was kind of my point, although there are more modern, DA semi-auto pistols with similar firepower.

[Tsukiyumi]

Frak the 9mm. Take the 1911 and split some skulls. Those .45s can shatter concrete bricks! Freaked me out the first time I saw it.

I wonder if overpressure 9mm rounds could do that?

To the range!

[Deepcrush]

Frak the 9mm. Take the 1911 and split some skulls. Those .45s can shatter concrete bricks! Freaked me out the first time I saw it.

I wonder if overpressure 9mm rounds could do that?

To the range!

If you don't survive. I'll be laughing in memory of you!

[Tsukiyumi]

They aren't hand-loaded; they're the sort police use.

Thanks anyways!

[Deepcrush]

Okay, so what do we have so far for this thread? Anyone care to do a recap or should we start over with the ideas we have on hand now?

[BigJKU316]

Frankly I think that those who are saying go to conventional firearms are nuts. If you watch the traditional development of hand carried weaposn it is pretty clear what stage they are in in Trek.

When there was a transition from bow and arrows to firearms initially people used both. Once firearms were advanced enough people basically ditched armor for a period of several hundred years. Simply put it was not effective enough to be worth the weight. However firearms failed in delivering either the volume or accuracy of fire that the previous bow and arrow system did for several hundreds of years as well. So why did people not go back?

Well, because materials technology had advanced to the point that the bow and arrow could be stopped by reasonably obtained armor of the time. So when firearms came along they offered a way to beat the armor. Since no armor could be produced at the time that would stop firearms armies eventually stopped wearing it all-together.

So this brings us to the Napoleonic War where you see similar things to what you see on this thread, which is Wellington saying he would like a unit of longbow men. After all they fire faster and are just as accurate if not more so, plus no one has armor now. IRL it did not happen because no one was trained to do so.

In Star Trek there is a different problem. We are somewhat close to having armor now that can stop most bullets. With advances in material technology I am making the assumption that reasonable armor against bullets (at least chemically driven ones) can be simply created. More than that it can simply be replicated very quickly if someone were to start using armor.

My assumption is that the reason armor is not used is that beam weapons can power up enough to defeat almost anything someone could reasonably carry and wear so they just go without. Because of that I assume phasers are dialed back to be simply sufficient to kill an unarmored opponent but could eaisly be turned up if armor appeared.

So that is the reason I think conventional guns are not going to work. They will be eaisly defended against. I could see them as valuable secondary weapons, but as a primary weapon I don't see it.

[Captain Seafort]

When there was a transition from bow and arrows to firearms initially people used both. Once firearms were advanced enough people basically ditched armor for a period of several hundred years. Simply put it was not effective enough to be worth the weight. However firearms failed in delivering either the volume or accuracy of fire that the previous bow and arrow system did for several hundreds of years as well. So why did people not go back?

Because training a competent bowman took a lifetime, while training a competent musketeer took a few months tops. That was the huge advantage of firearms over bows, not protection (which was only available to the richest combatants).

My assumption is that the reason armor is not used is that beam weapons can power up enough to defeat almost anything someone could reasonably carry and wear so they just go without. Because of that I assume phasers are dialed back to be simply sufficient to kill an unarmored opponent but could eaisly be turned up if armor appeared.

Nice idea, but phasers are piss-poor against armour, or any type of metals. They're routinely blocked by packing crates, and when Paris used a phaser against a modern (i.e. 1990s) lorry, he did no worse than burst a tyre - it didn't even take the wheel off.

[Deepcrush]

Seafort's right. Fact is we've seen that while Phasers CAN do impressive damage. More often then not, they don't.

KE weapons ARE effective in battle. Phasers are sometimes effective, sometimes not. So we made a choice between them. Bodyarmor is always helpful, even if only in small amounts its better then nothing. NO bodyarmor... is of no help... ever. Again, it came down to making a choice between them.

[Reliant121]

Is it me or did Disruptors seem far more effective during a battle? I cant remember what the episodes are but they always seemed more destructive.

[Deepcrush]

Could be that disruptors were always designed as firearms and not TV remotes.

[Captain Seafort]

It depends which Reliant is talking about - if it's the shipboard ones then it might be a product of the disruptor-using powers tending to design their ships with one or two high-powered weapons in the forward arc, rather than a dozen or so weaker weapons covering the entire ship.