Slug Weapons

Why is the use of slug weapons so rare in the GFFA ?

 

Because they are very crude and only used on planets that are war torn with low technology.

Edit: Crude in this sense is being used as roughly made and not always too accurate, not mean and vicious.

 

Probably mostly because body armor has rendered them useless, for the most part.

Imperial stormtrooper armor is supposed to be capable of shrugging off bullets and shrapnel like they were nothing.

But that thing on Endor sure was unusual... Apparently rocks and arrows can defeat stormtrooper scout armor...
*rolls eyes*

 

I always had the impression slugthrowers were the Earthian equivalent of bullet guns.

 

I believe they are.

To add a few thoughts, I think also a few other factors would be pertinant. Most significantly, I think, the fact that blasters and similar weapons have renewable ammuniation, as opposed to "slug throwers" (ie- guns ). Also, presumably less mechanical parts means less chance of failure and wear. And from logistical military sense, rather than creating and shipping endless millions of rounds of ammunition, all the end-user needs is somewhere to recharge- be it gaseous recharge, or electrical (as I understand it differs between certain weapons).

If, as some sources suggest, the slug thrower is less powerful than a blaster, and armour has been created that can readily deflect attacks from slug weapons, then their usefulness has become severely restricted. A squadron of stormtroopers, for example, would be invincible against a force armed with slug throwers alone.

 

The Essential Guide to Weapons and Technology shows us slugthrowers that are even more crude than some early bolt-actions. But yes, they are supposed to be traditional firearms.

Also, the logisitcal and tactical points made are quite valid.

 

Slug throwers, aswell as arrows and rocks CAN be effective if aimed at Storm Troopers weak points (ie the bits where there is no armor just) however blasters need no such weakness, they just burn through the armor.

 

If they're ineffective, why did Lando use one in HOT?



Their big problem IMO is that you need to buy bullets/slugs, as opposed to clips that can be reused technically. Also, it's harder to find said ammo.

 

Was the problem of different calibres for the slug-throwers already mentioned?

 

Slug throwers are useful for Jedi hunters.

"Dissipate THIS!"

//blam

 

I always figured that if you laced the bullets with a noxious substance when vaoprized, they'd be a good deterrant to a saber-wielding Jedi.

You shoot off a machine-gun of the things, and the Jedi either has the option of getting hit or blocking them and getting a face-full of poison gas when the saber vaporizes the bullets.

And even if they're not toxic, the Jedi has the choice of taking it or blocking the bullet with his saber and getting a face-full of molten lead or super-heated metallic gas.

I think I'd have an under-over blaster-rifle/archaic-shotgun. Fire off the blaster so the Jedi thinks that's what he's up against and can deflect the bolts. Then when he gets close-enough, fire off ol'e betsy.

 

heh... Betsy sure has taken care of a lot of problems over the years.......


<ah, the memories...>

Actually, back in the day, Rebel Specforce had pretty much perfected the slug thrower to where it was an effective mission specific weapon.

Specforce explosive slugs could eat through stormtrooper armor, and you could silence the weapons as well. Quite effective for insurgency type missions.

As has been discussed, cost and logistics were the determaning factors in the standardization of the blaster.

 

Nick Rotsu uses slugthrowers all the time because they still pack quite a punch, they don't fall apart in the jungle like blasters, and against Jedi they can't deflect the shots back at you.

 

As has been mentioned, the logistical problems of shipping crates of ammunition everywhere is definitely something to be taken into consideration.

Also, pound for pound, your average handgun simply won't do as much damage as your average blaster pistol... even less against armored targets.

Now it's true that Alliance Special Forces units were constantly refitting standard rounds with small amounts of detonite, making them far more effective against hard-armored targets than normal, but while doing so might have increased the overall effectiveness of the weapon, at least in terms of damage potential, it essentially neutralized one of the only advantages of using projectile weapons in the first place - you can stick a sound suppressor on a firearm; you can't do the same for a blaster weapon. But what good is it to suppress the sound of the bullet firing if the thing explodes upon impact?

 

<<Always figured that if you laced the bullets with a noxious substance when vaoprized, they'd be a good deterrant to a saber-wielding Jedi.>>

Only problem is that they might be able to defend against the poison gas a la Phantom Menace.

Maybe some kind of gas that caused an explosion when touched by the saber?

 

Easy..so your target doesn't know where the round came from.

A hidden Rebel Specforce trooper could get off numerous explosive shots from 800m away and never be detected.

Perfect for sniping that pesky Moff in his armored landspeeder, or taking out the controls to the defense shield, without getting close.

Sure, once the explosive slugs started impacting, everyone would know, but the Specforce trooper could then:
1)disappear

2) play "shoot the Stormtroopers in a barrel," while they ran around looking for him.

 

I think we shouldn't think so much on blaster "streaks" given the fact that normal science would have them be invisible and undogeable too

Star Wars is set in action-movie verse where bullets are able to be ducked from too

 

I agree, snipers would get the most benefit from slugthrowers. Otherwise, I'd have a trusty blaster by my side.

And going up against a Jedi with a slugthrower? I'd much rather prefer to run and/or beg for mercy. If it's any kind of Jedi, they will grant it to you. Slugthrowers would really only be effective against Jedi if you got the jump on them and have good aim. If you don't hit a vital area, the Jedi is still coming after you, and now he/she's pissed!

 

"I think I'd have an under-over blaster-rifle/archaic-shotgun. Fire off the blaster so the Jedi thinks that's what he's up against and can deflect the bolts. Then when he gets close-enough, fire off ol'e betsy. "

I'd be endlessly amused watching a Jedi try to deflect buckshot.

 

If they're ineffective, why did Lando use one in HOT?

Lando was going undercover, he needed to be able to get a shot off without revealing that it was he who had fired it. If he had used a blaster, the bolt would have much easier to see and someone could have saw that he was the shooter.

 

But what good is it to suppress the sound of the bullet firing if the thing explodes upon impact?

What point is a silencer when you either kill or inure you're target? Someone will notice you've killed or injured them even though they don't hear the shot. Yes, it's effective when you're in a room together. But their are silencers for longer range shots. And their purpose is to allow you to get even closer than you may need to do with a sniper rifle and still be able to get a shot off without anyone knowing where you are.

With exploding slugs, a silencer would allow an operative to fire a shot and no one would know where to look. They hear the slug go off, but they have no clue where to strike back.

 

Well, sure, you can pop off a few explosive rounds and then try and get clear amidst all the chaos, but if you wanted to keep the weapon itself suppressed, you'd still need to be relatively close to your target as the gun's effective range would be quite awful. On the other hand, a rifle firing a cartridge powerful enough to nail a target from 800 meters away would make one awful big bang. That being the case, I just happen to think that the benefits of using a suppressed weapon are almost effectively negated.

As for deflecting buckshot, well, yeah... that wouldn't work. But if it's possible to use the Force to grab a whole bunch of bullets and stop them in mid-air, it should also be able to stop a blaster bolt since those things aren't actually "lasers" as in they're not actually waves of radiation. All the junk I've read (Essential Guide to Weapons, for example) seems to suggest that blaster bolts are actually plasma of a sort. Plasma -is- matter, just highly excited matter. But if they -are- matter, then I don't see why, in theory, a Force-user couldn't just grab a blob of plasma the same way they could snag a hail of bullets.

And before anyone yells at me for it, yes, I'm aware this is science fiction; but I'm allowed to speculate, thank you.

 

Because they are slimy, have no arms or legs, and look like yeerks.

 

Phoenix,
there is really no easy way to explain this without getting really technical, but I'll try.

The length of a weapon's barrel has more to do with long range accuracy than the amount of powder used, because the force acts to push the bullet longer. Sure, you can overcharge a bullet, but you are going to run into practical considerations with bore pressure and such( basically, the weapon will explode)

A silencer operates by trapping escaping gases at the muzzle and prevents the rapidly expanding gas from causing a "sonic boom." Some muzzle velocity is lost at the barrel, but not much to make a real difference.

Now, firing a subsonic bullet out of a silenced weapon could still be very effective (and quiet) at around 800m, depending on the caliber.

In real world terms, the Barrett .50BMG rifle can be silenced and still be effective out to about 2000m!

In SW terms, the Rebel Specforce slug thrower relied on an exploding slug to cause the damage, not terminal velocity of the bullet.

This slug was similar to our current HEAT round, which is to say, the slug didn't actually "explode," but upon impact, sent a directed jet of molten hot gas and metal through to the target.

This weapon would be devastatingly effective for the hidden Alliance trooper....