Dustbuster phaser appreciation thread

[CoveTom]

As presented in Trek, Phaser Beams really hold no practical advantages to real life guns of today. I've always hated that.

Uhm... huh? Just because the beam is presented as moving toward its target instead of instantaneous, the phaser has no advantage over today's handgun?

How about the fact that a phaser can stun someone effectively using non-lethal force so that killing can be avoided? Or that a phaser can be used as a tool for cutting through objects or generating a heat source? Or that a phaser can be set to vaporize and instantaneously remove tons of debris that is trapping someone? Or that a phaser can be set to a high enough power setting to incapacitate or kill creatures powerful enough to be unfazed by a bullet? Or that a phaser can be set to a wide beam and hit large numbers of targets at once? Or, heck, that a phaser can be used to sweep through a room and detect changelings?

Seems to me phasers have many advantages over today's guns.

 

[The Castellan]

6. I *HATED* the fact that practically all Phasers ever shown in Star Trek have that "piss" like effect of a stream of energy slowly moving toward a target. Energy moves at relativistic speeds, so Phaser Blasts should reach their target virtually instantaneously no matter how far away they are (Enterprise seems to have gotten the closest to approaching this model, the new Star Trek movie did a 180 and became the worst offender for Phaser blast realism)

I didn't notice the time lag on the 2009 movie phasers, because I was too busy cringing at the old-timey Western sound they made - like a pistol shot ricocheting off the rocks. "Kkkhhh-pewwwww!"

Doug

Surprised 'ole JJ did not have everyone using bullets, to add 'realism', you know.

 

[The Castellan]

I always liked this version. I held a replica once, and it felt just fine in my hand. Aiming felt pretty comfy as well.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Abrams et al. did seem to radically simplify the phaser and its abilities. Apparently, these phasers can only be set to kill or to stun. Even Pike's hand laser had three different emitters, one more than the new/old models.

 

[Gepard]

Abrams et al. did seem to radically simplify the phaser and its abilities. Apparently, these phasers can only be set to kill or to stun.

The new phasers do have a thumbwheel and some kind of power indicator window on the back of the body; it's possible that they have multiple settings for each of the emitters.

 

[Forbin]

You can't set a Colt .45 to stun, or use it to burn through a wall, or heat a rock. Phasers aren't just for killing people, whereas that's the raison d'être for a gun.

Technically incorrect, depending on the gun, of course. A handgun is primarily defensive, and primarily intended to stop an attacker from hurting you. Death may be a secondary effect, but not the primary reason. That's why the .45 was designed with a big, slow bullet - to knock an attacker down and give the defender control of the situation, without necessarily killing the guy.

A military rifle such as an M-16 or AK is designed to wound as many enemy soildiers as possible. Wounded enemy soldiers are better than dead enemy soldiers because each wounded soldiers requires personell and resources to take care of. Shoot one guy and two other guys have to drag him off the field, thus taking three guys out of the fight. This is part of the reasoning behind international law which requires military to use full-metal-jacket bullets rather than soft points or hollow points.

The raison d'être for a target pistol, target rifle or competition trap shotgun is obviously NOT to kill. And a great many guns are designed just to be fun to shoot, whether it be target shooting or informal plinking.

Pretty much the only guns designed specifically to kill are hunting rifles and shotguns.

 

[RapidNadion]

Did you guys know that the Dustbuster was misrepresented in the tech manuals? The actual prop wasn't quite the same.

I've only seen the dustbuster detailed in print twice: in the Starlog "Technical Journal" I had as a kid (and which I just re-ordered through Amazon so I can read it again for the first time in 10 years), and in the CG renders in Star Trek The Magazine. The latter were very poor, but I recall the former looking at least passable.

One thing I always wondered about the dustbuster was what power settings it was capable of reaching. We know the type 1 went up to level 8, and the cobrahead type 2 went up to 16. The LEDs on the dustbuster seem only to go up to 11 or so.

 

[Gil T.Azell]

Thats kind of cool.
I have one of these for a spare TV remote.

 

[Doug Otte]

I always liked this version. I held a replica once, and it felt just fine in my hand. Aiming felt pretty comfy as well.

Nice. Which version: the smooth early one or the angular later one?

Doug

 

[Doug Otte]

Thats kind of cool.
I have one of these for a spare TV remote.

That's pretty cool. Can you vaporize your spouse if he/she complains about your channel selection?

Doug

 

[The Castellan]

I always liked this version. I held a replica once, and it felt just fine in my hand. Aiming felt pretty comfy as well.

Nice. Which version: the smooth early one or the angular later one?

Doug

The smooth. I felt that I had a better chance hitting a target with that one.