possible reason we never seen the phaser rifle after w.n.m.h.g.b.

[Gary7]

I never liked it, even when I saw it back during the years before TNG. It looked much too primitive, akin to the hand lasers. The type II phaser that followed looked far more conventional and plausible in design.

The need for a rifle still existed, but we just weren't given scenarios where it made sense to use it. I have to admit, I never really liked the TNG rifle either. It looked too much like the dust buster hand phaser, which was a stupid design to begin with. A pistol grip with a chamber that rests across the wrist is the most practical design for a human held hand weapon. Sci-fi productions have tried to deviate from it purely for the attempt to look different and modern... but it's still silly nonsense.

[TREK_GOD_1]

Gary7 wrote:

---

A pistol grip with a chamber that rests across the wrist is the most practical design for a human held hand weapon. Sci-fi productions have tried to deviate from it purely for the attempt to look different and modern... but it's still silly nonsense.

Well, Phaser I successfully accomplished that in 1966, and it proved to be as practical a hand-held weapon as the pistol version. Add the ability to conceal it in a way one cannot with PII, and PI could be the perfect Starfleet personal weapon.

[cgervasi]

The Eggnogstic wrote:

---

Can you imagine Kirk ordering, "Landing party will arm themselves with CLEBs on stun setting"?

I thought it was hard to imagine calling them ACE or BEE guns. But if phaser hadn't entered the language through Trek, I would think of the word phasor, which in engineering is a phase vector representation of a sinusoidal voltage or current. "You can't name a gun that I'd think."

I wonder if they had called them ACE guns if we'd just accept that as the word for it. It would be more ingrained than the idea the word Amazon represents a retailer.

[scotpens]

Gary7 wrote:

---

. . . A pistol grip with a chamber that rests across the wrist is the most practical design for a human held hand weapon.

For an explosive-propelled projectile weapon, yes. But an energy beam weapon could have a completely different shape.

cgervasi wrote:

---

. . . if phaser hadn't entered the language through Trek, I would think of the word phasor, which in engineering is a phase vector representation of a sinusoidal voltage or current.

The first time I heard phasers mentioned, I thought of the word "faze" and assumed the weapons were "fazers."

[King Daniel]

The Eggnogstic wrote:

---

For an explosive-propelled projectile weapon, yes. But an energy beam weapon could have a completely different shape.

Commander Koenig, please... put the stapler down...

[Nerys Myk]

I was wondering what the coaxial ports were for.

[Timo]

And there you hit the mark with the phaser/laser props, too.

Remember that the ones we are discussing had one very prominent feature - multiple barrels or firing chambers that were rotated into position? The rifle had just one barrel but three identical-looking chambers; the sidearm had three stubby barrels of differing lengths and diameters.

Looks and sounds like a multi-function weapon to me. One barrel fires stun phaser beams, another fires kill phaser beams, and the third is the ever-handy extra, the cutting laser...

Separate barrels for stun and kill reappear in STXI. And while the standard phaser is the preferred tool for cutting in "The Naked Time" already, note that this weapon, too, appears to have two cylindrar barrels - one within the other!

My preferred excuse here thus is that in the 2240s, the standard sidearm carried a few extra functions, but increasing integration replaced this with just two barrels in the (alternate?) 2250s and (or?) with just one multi-function contraption in the 2260s, and the additional complexity of the laser barrel was either ditched as counterproductive, or integrated into the standard sidearm. The 2250s rifle with three different functions / firing chambers was simplified at the same time and the older model went quite out of fashion. OTOH, much like its 24th century counterparts, it had never really been more powerful than the heavy sidearm versions. It had merely had certain bells and whistles also quoted in the DS9 era: multitargeting, gyrostabilizing and whatnot.

Timo Saloniemi

[Darkwing]

I find it easier to assume phasers were invented in the 23rd century, finally replacing all lasers in the mid-2260s, and that phase pistols are a product of a different universe.
That, and the phaser rifle was tested, then discontinued, and replacements were only fielded by units showing a need, such a MiliOps Command vessels, Marines, etc.

[Gov Kodos]

Santa Kang wrote:

---

I was wondering what the coaxial ports were for.

For making julian fries, it's a must for the gift giver.

[Nerys Myk]

Darkwing wrote:

---

I find it easier to assume phasers were invented in the 23rd century, finally replacing all lasers in the mid-2260s, and that phase pistols are a product of a different universe.
That, and the phaser rifle was tested, then discontinued, and replacements were only fielded by units showing a need, such a MiliOps Command vessels, Marines, etc.

I don't see how the "different universe" rationalization is easier.

[T'Girl]

Darkwing wrote:

---

phase pistols

Just another name for the "intermediate stage" pistols.

The transition weapon between the obsolete EM pistols, and the still not ready for deployment laser pistols.

[Gary7]

The Eggnogstic wrote:

---

For an explosive-propelled projectile weapon, yes. But an energy beam weapon could have a completely different shape.

It's not about the inner workings of the device that I mentioned this. It's due to the hand-eye coordination needed to aim the device. A TOS P-II phaser is fine for close quarters but not long range. Anything further than 50 feet needs direct eye sighting to be effective for precision shots.

The Space:1999 hand gun actually makes a weird squiggly vertical laser pattern, so all you need to worry about is one axis (X). With that you can kind of get away with the staple gun design.

[Timo]

Beyond 50 meters, a slugthrowing pistol already compensates for the non-beeline trajectory of the bullet: the aiming system doesn't equate line-of-sight with line-of-flight / line-of-barrel. There wouldn't be need to equate the two for other types of weapon, either.

Really, hand-eye coordination would probably be the one thing that is completely removed from the equation once futuristic recoilless, barrel-less personal weapons are introduced. Taking the weapon off the hands of the user would free those hands for meaningful work; the weapon could be mounted elsewhere (say, on a simple body harness, or on a helmet, but preferably hovering autonomously somewhere near the user), and targeted by sight alone.

Timo Saloniemi

[T'Girl]

Timo wrote:

---

the weapon could be mounted elsewhere (say, on a simple body harness, or on a helmet

If someone is shooting at me, I'd rather stick my fist (with weapon) around a corner, than expose my head or chest.

A hovering weapon the size of a hand phaser would seem to be beyond TOS technology.

[Darkwing]

Santa Kang wrote:

---

I don't see how the "different universe" rationalization is easier.

Assuming Ent is a reboot means I don't need to rationalize any conflicts between The Only Series and Early Nu Trek.

You needn't follow my example, just sayin' it's easier, IMO.