Star Wars, Lightsabers, and submachine guns

[Rednog]

Yes, blaster fire is slower than projectile weaponry. You based this upon...What now?

Because in sci-fi everyone uses LAZORS! Also light based weapons are more deadly then ballistic weapons and faster, since they travel at the speed of light. Star Wars would be less fun if you couldn't see the blaster shots though.

You realize that blaster fire is a laser and therefore, by definition, travels at the speed of light correct?

Thus, ballistic projectiles will never be able to go faster than blaster fire.

Here's the thing why are all of you assuming that the laser weapons in star wars move at the speed of light. We can clearly see the laser bolts fly through the air with the naked eye; considering you can see the individual bolt fly through the air it would definitely indicate that it is sign of it traveling far slower than the speed of light. If it were traveling at the speed of light it would travel from barrel to target far faster than you would be able to perceive.
Where as you don't see bullets travel through the air with the naked eye, thus it would stand to reason that in this scenario bullets would indeed be faster.

Or rather they're just very small and not glowing bright red when they fire.

Except for the fact that you can attach something that is glowing and bright red to the bullet in something like tracer rounds. From the side they're extremely hard to see even though they're bright red and glowing because they are traveling so fast.

 

[Agayek]

Here's the thing why are all of you assuming that the laser weapons in star wars move at the speed of light. We can clearly see the laser bolts fly through the air with the naked eye; considering you can see the individual bolt fly through the air it would definitely indicate that it is sign of it traveling far slower than the speed of light. If it were traveling at the speed of light it would travel from barrel to target far faster than you would be able to perceive.
Where as you don't see bullets travel through the air with the naked eye, thus it would stand to reason that in this scenario bullets would indeed be faster.

You're confusing "artistic license" with "physics of the universe". The only reason you can see the lasers is because it looks better that way, instead of people falling over with charred holes in them.

It's the same reason you can hear the Death Star explode (unless you want to argue that sound can travel in a vacuum, which I have seen before, sadly enough).

 

[Quazimofo]

I could try to come up with a in-universe explanation but why try?

The answer is and will always be: because it is cool and having the good guys die because of a weapon we have in our world is boring. Same reason they use fighters, big ass space stations and blaster canons with shorter range than modern missiles.


see also: Harry Potter and sniper rifles.

Real question is: Why do you want to ruin the fun?

well, for harry potter, thats just a matter of everyone in the wizarding world being horrifically uninformed about "muggle" technology. If harry potter was more violent as a youth, he absolutely would have at least considered just taking a gun and ending voldemort right quick with a long-range lead injection.

but yeah, It is just more fun to see the heroes be able to swat away otherwise powerful weapons with a flick of the wrist.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Yes, blaster fire is slower than projectile weaponry. You based this upon...What now?

Because in sci-fi everyone uses LAZORS! Also light based weapons are more deadly then ballistic weapons and faster, since they travel at the speed of light. Star Wars would be less fun if you couldn't see the blaster shots though.

You realize that blaster fire is a laser and therefore, by definition, travels at the speed of light correct?

Thus, ballistic projectiles will never be able to go faster than blaster fire.

Here's the thing why are all of you assuming that the laser weapons in star wars move at the speed of light. We can clearly see the laser bolts fly through the air with the naked eye; considering you can see the individual bolt fly through the air it would definitely indicate that it is sign of it traveling far slower than the speed of light. If it were traveling at the speed of light it would travel from barrel to target far faster than you would be able to perceive.
Where as you don't see bullets travel through the air with the naked eye, thus it would stand to reason that in this scenario bullets would indeed be faster.

Or rather they're just very small and not glowing bright red when they fire.

Except for the fact that you can attach something that is glowing and bright red to the bullet in something like tracer rounds. From the side they're extremely hard to see even though they're bright red and glowing because they are traveling so fast.

One problem: /all/ of the guns in Star Wars kick when they're fired, for a pretty practical reason: they're real blank firing guns. You can even see casings ejecting in certain scenes in the OT. Having real smoke coming out of the guns apparently makes it easier for the rotoscope artists to time the animations.

Edit: Whoops, totally misread that. I thought the "Or maybe they're just small and not glowing bright red" was a reference to the comment about Tusken Raiders using a slug thrower during the podrace scene. A low FPS airsoft pistol probably throws BBs faster than the blasters in Star Wars.

 

[2xDouble]

Ammunition, particularly explosive-powder ammunition, is a liability when others have access to laser and plasma weapons. The more ammunition you carry, the higher probability one of those stored shells will be struck/superheated (even through armor) and detonated. Furthermore, projectile weapons require far more moving parts and mechanical systems than energy weapons (even plasma weapons), making them far more prone to break down, especially in zero- or low-gravity environments.

captcha: double whammy. That's it exactly, captcha.

 

[Chimpzy_v1legacy]

OT: Jedi don't react quickly, they can predict the immediate future. It's been explained by Lucas that they would be able to block bullets, but the bullets would vaporize in the blade rather than reflect.

Yeah, but a lightsabers blade is made of incredibly hot plasma, ionized gas, so not exactly the densest material. So unless I'm mistaken, the blade would vaporize the bullets metal, but do little to actually stop its momentum. So, instead of a lethally fast piece of solid metal, wouldn't you have a little cloud of lethally fast superheated metal vapor flying at you instead? Neither sounds like much fun to get hit with in the face.

I'm thinking using those future-predicting powers to simply dodge would be an altogether better idea.

 

[rcs619]

Also - wouldn't bullets be more trouble? Can you imagine how many of them you have to carry? As opposed to one battery or whatever fuels the plasma guns. Also, what could bullets possibly do to a sheet of metal? Oh right, melt it...wait, that was lasers. What possible advantage do bullets have? They are bulky, unreliable, can only penetrate certain kinds of armour, even then not that many (you have to use different bullets for different situation), and, to top it off, aren't likely to be effective against each species. Oh, and aren't likely to work properly in different places.

If you want to look at things from a more realistic perspective (I know, Star Wars, realism, lol =P) energy weapons are not necessarily a straight-up upgrade over kinetics. Both have things they do better than each other.

Energy weapons (lasers, plasma, etc) generally have terrible penetrating power (unless you go totally nuts, with like, grasers and stuff). They burn, and they melt, that's it. They have virtually zero weight behind the projectile itself. With the proper application of meta-materials and specialized surface coatings, you could, in theory, make armor extremely resistant to energy weapons. Not to mention, if you don't kill someone outright, there's no added trauma. You can't bleed someone out with a laser. On the positive side, energy weapons are (in theory... but apparently not in application in Star Wars) MUCH faster than any kinetic projectile will ever be, and much more accurate over longer distances.

With kinetic weapons, they have weight behind them. When they hit something, they penetrate. They rend, and tear and shatter. They also create much messier wounds, with bleeding, and embedded shrapnel not to mention things like tissue damage, tearing, etc (which, as cruel as it is, is what you want in a war). They're also likely going to be better against armored targets, since kinetic weapons are going to have superior penetrating power. This is assuming more futuristic bullets of course, likely made of superior materials and with a more powerful propellant behind them. Only way you can really make a comparison though, since comparing modern bullets to futuristic laser-guns is like comparing a flintlock pistol to an AK-47.

Personally, I'd rather have a slug-thrower, myself. The technology is simpler, more proven, and I want to know that when I hit something, they FEEL it

 

[Altorin]

could it be and I'm just throwing this out here, that lasers are better for movies and cinematic scenes in general because people can actually see them? As opposed to tiny bullets that fly faster then sound?

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

'cos the Jedi would just catch them with his overpowered telekinesis and throw 'em all back at you, which he can't do with the non-solid blaster bolts.

Yeah, human reaction time is not that fast.
So, once more, WHY ARE THERE NOT AS MANY BULLETS!

Because blasters make for shiny special effects?

Yeah. It's a fairly common fallacy in science fiction - particularly stuff on the softer "sci-fantasy" end of the scale.

Star Trek does the same thing. There's no reason that conventional weaponry wouldn't work as well or better than most of their hand-held weaponry, but conventional weapons aren't 'spacey' enough.

That's one of the things I appreciate about Aliens, Firefly, and Mass Effect - they still use ballistic weapons. Why? Because they're cheaper, more reliable, and no less effective than something fancier.

Edit: At least Babylon 5 hangs a lantern on it by saying that PPGs won't punch a hole in the hull, whereas conventional weapons will. Hull breach is a fairly good reason to avoid using bullets.

 

[GoldenFish]

So, deflecting it isn't all that much of an option, so... Yeah, Ballistic Gunslinger against Jedi, gunslinger would win, because lightning bolts are basically bolts of plasma. So, I suppose against Jedi, it's the most valuable weapon... I suppose it wouldn't be as useful to anything else.

Isn't that assuming that only a single bolt of plasma (lightning or watevs) was going throught the bullet not a constant flow throughout the time the bullet is within the diameter of the lightsaber?
When you increase the bolts by how much would pass through in that time wouldn't the small amounts of degrees that it's being heated up increase greatly?

 

[saintdane05]

Meet the Golan Arms flechette launcher. Featured four canister tubes, each able to hold a single canister, with two reserve tubes. The FC-1 was capable of holding either antipersonnel canisters or eleven-centimeter-long antivehicle missiles with enough strength to rip through ten centimeters of durasteel. The flechette launcher had a secondary firing mode in which it fired two proximity grenades. It had an optimum range of 100 meters and a maximum range of 250 meters. Kyle Katarn used the FC-1 extensively in his career.

I call it, Jedi Killer.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/FC-1_flechette_launcher

 

[Spade Lead]

So, I have just one small thing that really bugged me about the star wars series...
Why is it always plasma weapons or lightsabers (Which can reflect Blaster Fire), and never, oh, lets say... Ballistic weapons, like a Submachine gun!? I mean, honestly, it seems to make sense, and it'll probably go faster then Blaster Fire it'll probably fire more then Blasters, leaving no time to respond, and can't be blocked! Why the hell does nobody REALIZE that!?

Just something that really bugged me.

Real lasers are speed of light weapons, and bullets would still be dissolved in the plasma of a lightsaber.

 

[Spade Lead]

This lasers vs bullets argument seems to be fairly arbitrary to me. What I see as a much bigger issue is, why do people only ever fire their blasters at Jedi on semi auto? Seriously? They can't be expecting us to believe that every handheld gun in the galaxy has the same rate of fire as a repeater rifle. In fact, in games like Battlefront we see that the standard issue blasters for regular troops of every faction have full auto capabilities, but to my recollection, in the movies, everyone who fires a blaster rifle at a jedi fires one bolt per trigger pull! So, what would happen if a Jedi went up against an assault rifle or even a light machine gun with no cover and only his lighsaber to protect him? With that volume of fire, surely he'd only be able to block one or two shots before being overwhelmed?

Modern military tactics suggest that the only time you ever go full auto is for suppression fire, which is where you blindly fire around the corner in the general direction of your foes to keep their head down, and NEVER do that for prolonged periods, otherwise you will damage your gun by overheating it, and if that is true of bullets, imagine the heat generated by a gigawatt laser.

 

[Spade Lead]

"... a lightsaber could just vaporize what few bullets would find their mark even if the Jedi didn't feel like reflecting them."

Alright, this is just minorly annoying, but I'll just quote This article [http://what-if.xkcd.com/16/], basically replacing lightning with lightsaber:

What would happen if lightning A lightsaber struck a bullet in midair?
The bullet won't affect the path the lightning takes. You'd have somehow to time the shot so the bullet was in the middle of the bolt when the return stroke happened.
The core of a lightning bolt is a few centimeters in diameter. A bullet fired from an AK-47 is about 26 mm long and moves at about 700 millimeters every millisecond.
The bullet has a copper coating over a lead core. Copper is a fantastically good conductor of electricity, and much of the 20,000 amps could easily take a shortcut through the bullet.

Surprisingly, the bullet handles it pretty well. If it were sitting still, the current would quickly heat and melt the metal. But it?s moving along so quickly that it exits the channel before it can be warmed by more than a few degrees. It continues on to its target relatively unaffected. There are some curious electromagnetic forces created by the magnetic field around the bolt and the current flow through the bullet, but none of the ones I examined changed the overall picture very much.

So, deflecting it isn't all that much of an option, so... Yeah, Ballistic Gunslinger against Jedi, gunslinger would win, because lightning bolts are basically bolts of plasma. So, I suppose against Jedi, it's the most valuable weapon... I suppose it wouldn't be as useful to anything else.

The thing is, lightsabers use a magnetic field to contain the plasma, so it would not pass through the lightsaber, but be deflected like the blaster bolts, which are also magnetically contained, or captured long enough for the plasma to immolate it.

 

[Waffle_Man]

You and I must have watched very different kung fu movies. I remember some were being shot at by armies. Others were shot at while blindfolded. Not exactly what I'd call "controlled circumstances". Well, maybe the blindfolded ones, although the arrow still goes towards them.

Exhibit A: Regular monk vs. Bullet:

I would hardly call those normal monks. Many older kung fu movies did have monks with the ability to basically fly, but the whole surviving an army thing is largely a development due to the special effects available these days.

Still, I grant that it's hard to meaningfully speculate about how real world weapons would work in a world that doesn't meaningfully follow the laws of physics, for all I know the light sabers might turn bullets into slow moving gum drops...

 

[Twilight_guy]

Yes, blaster fire is slower than projectile weaponry. You based this upon...What now?

Because in sci-fi everyone uses LAZORS! Also light based weapons are more deadly then ballistic weapons and faster, since they travel at the speed of light. Star Wars would be less fun if you couldn't see the blaster shots though.

You realize that blaster fire is a laser and therefore, by definition, travels at the speed of light correct?

Thus, ballistic projectiles will never be able to go faster than blaster fire.

Here's the thing why are all of you assuming that the laser weapons in star wars move at the speed of light. We can clearly see the laser bolts fly through the air with the naked eye; considering you can see the individual bolt fly through the air it would definitely indicate that it is sign of it traveling far slower than the speed of light. If it were traveling at the speed of light it would travel from barrel to target far faster than you would be able to perceive.
Where as you don't see bullets travel through the air with the naked eye, thus it would stand to reason that in this scenario bullets would indeed be faster.

Okay, that pissed me off.
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Blaster
Blaster fire high energy particles. As you might have guessed a ball of energy that will explode on contact (as seen by the cheap spark effect when blasters hit anything) is more deadly then a slug of lead, for the same reason that a bullet that bursts into shrapnel on impact is more deadly then a conventional bullet.

It doesn't matter though since people even using guns that fire bullets is entirely dependent on the idea that these guns are available. Since Star Wars takes place in a galaxy far far away and long long ago, we cannot assume that they invented firearms. Blasters might have been invented instead of guns that fire bullets. You can't use a submachine gun if one was never invented. However, as noted in said article apparently lasers do exist but have since become obsolete.

On top of that, Star Wars is partially for kids and you can't shoot people in shows that kids watch, you can only use bloodless lasers that make people fall over. Conventional guns are less exotic then energy weapons and clash with the design of Star Wars. So, Rule of Cool.

 

[FalloutJack]

So, I have just one small thing that really bugged me about the star wars series...
Why is it always plasma weapons or lightsabers (Which can reflect Blaster Fire), and never, oh, lets say... Ballistic weapons, like a Submachine gun!? I mean, honestly, it seems to make sense, and it'll probably go faster then Blaster Fire it'll probably fire more then Blasters, leaving no time to respond, and can't be blocked! Why the hell does nobody REALIZE that!?

Just something that really bugged me.

I see a problem here, and it's twofold.

The first is that the energy weapons - they come in ion and plasma if I recall right - are light and energy traveling without friction through the air. Putting aside whether or not this is operating under the known laws of physics (energy moving at the speed of light), it's still faster than bullets, and the force-user instinct is heavily predictive and high-reflexive to cope with it.

However, the OTHER half of it is that what good ARE bullets to the sword made of light that cuts through everything? The bullets melt! I'm afraid it wouldn't fair much better.

Now, explosives...

 

[Rednog]

Yes, blaster fire is slower than projectile weaponry. You based this upon...What now?

Because in sci-fi everyone uses LAZORS! Also light based weapons are more deadly then ballistic weapons and faster, since they travel at the speed of light. Star Wars would be less fun if you couldn't see the blaster shots though.

You realize that blaster fire is a laser and therefore, by definition, travels at the speed of light correct?

Thus, ballistic projectiles will never be able to go faster than blaster fire.

Here's the thing why are all of you assuming that the laser weapons in star wars move at the speed of light. We can clearly see the laser bolts fly through the air with the naked eye; considering you can see the individual bolt fly through the air it would definitely indicate that it is sign of it traveling far slower than the speed of light. If it were traveling at the speed of light it would travel from barrel to target far faster than you would be able to perceive.
Where as you don't see bullets travel through the air with the naked eye, thus it would stand to reason that in this scenario bullets would indeed be faster.

Okay, that pissed me off.
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Blaster
Blaster fire high energy particles. As you might have guessed a ball of energy that will explode on contact (as seen by the cheap spark effect when blasters hit anything) is more deadly then a slug of lead, for the same reason that a bullet that bursts into shrapnel on impact is more deadly then a conventional bullet.

It doesn't matter though since people even using guns that fire bullets is entirely dependent on the idea that these guns are available. Since Star Wars takes place in a galaxy far far away and long long ago, we cannot assume that they invented firearms. Blasters might have been invented instead of guns that fire bullets. You can't use a submachine gun if one was never invented. However, as noted in said article apparently lasers do exist but have since become obsolete.

On top of that, Star Wars is partially for kids and you can't shoot people in shows that kids watch, you can only use bloodless lasers that make people fall over. Conventional guns are less exotic then energy weapons and clash with the design of Star Wars. So, Rule of Cool.

Uhh, you kind of missed the point, the question is not "are blaster weapons more deadly" it's why don't they use traditional ballistics instead. And you're initial answer was because they are light based they travel at the speed of light. Which in your wiki article actually refutes that and supports my position, because in fact the weapons are either high energy particles or plasma, thus they are not moving at light speed. If it were a true laser weapon it would hit near the speed of light, but they are not.

And to address your second point we can assume at some point there have been ballistic weapons, while we haven't seen ballistic guns we've seen the same idea of using a force to push a projectile. Boba Fett has a rocket strapped to his back; Luke, Obiwan, Qui Gon, Amidala have all used various types of grappling hook launchers; or the launched hooks to take down the AT-ATs. All based around the same principle. And while yes it just happens to be a side effect of limited resources/lack of imagination you wouldn't necessarily have the ballistic shape of the traditional gun for a laser weapon unless you had the ballistic technology previously.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Also - wouldn't bullets be more trouble? Can you imagine how many of them you have to carry?

Bullets are fairly heavy; however, militaries have managed to use projectile firearms for hundreds of years. A "standard combat load" for the US Army is 210 rounds for a rifleman. That weighs in at around seven pounds or less than 10% of a standard patrol load most of the time.

As opposed to one battery or whatever fuels the plasma guns.

Well, since we have no data on what those weigh or how many shots you get, the logistics argument is hard to make. The video games imply you have to reload regularly. I don't recall anyone ever reloading a blaster in the movies.

Also, what could bullets possibly do to a sheet of metal?

Go through it. A light rifle round can penetrate a significant fraction of an inch of steel. The M1A2 (The US Main battle tank) primary tank killing round is just a very large bullet moving fairly fast (the projectile itself does damage with sheer kinetic force - the same as a bullet only bigger) and it can defeat feet of steel.

What possible advantage do bullets have?

They can be manufactured in a machine shop using technology hundreds of years old. In the star wars universe there is also the notable fact that the Star Wars universe relies heavily on "deflector" shielding to survive - a technology that is utterly ineffective against kinetic projectiles.

They are bulky,

Not particularly, actually. Heavy yes - they are mostly metal after all.

unreliable,

This is quite false. With even rudimentary quality control standards, achieving a failure rate of a fraction of a percent is easy enough. Most failures to fire are not faulty ammunition but rather a faulty weapon (or a weapon that simply doesn't operate well using a particular type of round)

can only penetrate certain kinds of armour,

A chunk of matter going sufficiently fast will go through more or less anything. The Mass Effect universe relies largely upon this principle with relatively small slugs being propelled to staggering speeds which grants them tremendous power. The only reason this seems underpowered in any context is that Star Wars (or Star Trek if you prefer) throws units of measure around with no real concept of what they imply. Proton torpedoes carry more explosive power than all the nuclear arms ever built in the course of human history. Thus star wars technology is superior only in the sense that it relies upon magic.

Arguing practicality when one side gets magic is hardly useful.

even then not that many (you have to use different bullets for different situation),

This isn't particularly true and even in situations where performance of a weapon is highly mutable based upon ammunition choice, the fact that this is easily altered in a handful of seconds in a battle scenario is actually a point in the favor of firearms. For the most part, within given calibers there is not a huge difference in operational parameters when it comes to hurting people with the round. The 9mm and 9mm +P may have different muzzle energies that generally grant the +P round greater stopping power - that difference is not as significant as simply using the slightly larger .40 S&W or 10mm.

To put it another way, in spite of having access to many types of 5.56x45 NATO ammunition, the vast bulk of all rounds of that caliber ever fired are a simple full metal jacket example with a steel penetration core.

and, to top it off, aren't likely to be effective against each species. Oh, and aren't likely to work properly in different places.[/quote]

 

[Zack Alklazaris]

I'd love it so much if the seventh star wars film is just about a couple of guys with shotguns who wipe out all the jedis

I guess metal could be really rare in the universe & therefore cost too much, or maybe there are laws preventing its use as it's deemed too cruel. Although considering that weapons that burn people's flesh and cut them in half are perfectly legal, that's probably not true.

Nah they are building freakin "small moon" sized dooms day devices out of metal so thats not the issue. Honestly I doubt bullets could stop a jedi because they could force push the bullets away from them. Also if the lightsaber is hot enough it might just vaporize the projectiles. Bullets are also much slower and far less accurate than a laser. This is because bullets create drag which can cause them to move in the wind. They are also affected by gravity and can not go as far as lasers.

You want to defeat a jedi get a dozen Starfleet officers with phasers to attack them all at once. Since phasers can fire continuously there is no way for a jedi to block all 12 phasers hitting them at once.