Projectile weapons in Trek?

[Vandervecken]

Another recent thread I was reading here, about whether or not the Borg are interested in holobeings, made me remember something I was thinking about when I first saw First Contact, but never discussed with anyone.

Picard kills two Borg drones with a machine gun on the holodeck in First Contact. What I couldn't help thinking when I saw that years ago was: this is a helluva lot more effective at killing Borg, and maybe anyone, than phasers or other energy weapons. Phasers and other energy weapons are recoilless and can do much greater damage if necessary, for example you can destroy whole walls, but for simple ground combat against humanoids, it looked to me like automatic projectile weapons would be much more effective. Probably the Borg, in particular, would quickly adapt their force shields to stop projectiles, but I couldn't help thinking that, in general, for just killing other humanoids, an uzi, say, would be a lot more effective than a phaser.

(I know the "gun" Picard was using was itself just a holoversion of a matter gun and thus itself something of an energy weapon, but the point it's a good emulation and the holobullets are clearly intended to be bullets, not any kind of energy projection.)

I could see that maybe projectile weapons might not be so great at disrupting the physiology of non-humanoids, although I'd expect them to have some effect. And I guess they'd have zero effect on Changelings. But most of the species that other AQ species have to fire on are humanoids (and really this is true of we've seen of the DQ as well), and Changelings are the only significant liquid forms I know of (other than, I guess, the Demon Planet goo from Voy).

 

[Shat Happens]

Picard kills two Borg drones with a machine gun

That was Action Picard, it's another character. He also drives dune buggys.

Now phasers. Your enemy took cover behind a rock? just desintegrate the rock AND the enemy.

Coming to think of it, maybe energy weapons affect the brain of the yielder. The Death Star also didnt shoot the planet Yavin, which would be logical.

 

[C.E. Evans]

I've always thought that phasers were as much tools as they were weapons, especially when one needed to weld or cut through something like a ship's bulkhead or through a rock wall. Phasers could also be used to power some devices like an inactive control console in lieu of any power packs on hand.

I think that's the main reason why phasers are favored over projectile weapons, and one may be able to go a lot longer with a phaser without having to reload or having to carry lots of ammo.

 

[MacLeod]

And of course with a Phaser you could stun someone and they would still be alive for questioning. Stuck on a world with dropping tempatures, use a phaser to heat up a rock.

 

[TwoJakes]

That transporter rifle Ezri used, there was a projectile.

 

[Vandervecken]

No question phasers are more versatile and powerful than projectile weapons. But I am specifically thinking of killing, not any other purposes, as I wrote originally. It just looks to me like automatic fire, especially today's high-velocity military fire, would be much more devastating to enemy personnel.

Also, about shooting away cover--boulders, etc--I'm sure we've seen characters hiding behind mineral/rocky cover and getting up to fire, then hiding behind the cover with that cover then being struck by some kind of return energy fire, but not being destroyed. Nor do the characters attempt to simply destory the enemy's cover. But I agree that phasers and disruptors should be able to blast through such cover. Maybe this is an inconsistency?

(Aside: I miss TOS annihilation effect. It was just plain cool, and far more impressive to me than later series' energy flashes/burns.)

 

[Grendelsbayne]

No question phasers are more versatile and powerful than projectile weapons. But I am specifically thinking of killing, not any other purposes, as I wrote originally. It just looks to me like automatic fire, especially today's high-velocity military fire, would be much more devastating to enemy personnel.

Also, about shooting away cover--boulders, etc--I'm sure we've seen characters hiding behind mineral/rocky cover and getting up to fire, then hiding behind the cover with that cover then being struck by some kind of return energy fire, but not being destroyed. Nor do the characters attempt to simply destory the enemy's cover. But I agree that phasers and disruptors should be able to blast through such cover. Maybe this is an inconsistency?

(Aside: I miss TOS annihilation effect. It was just plain cool, and far more impressive to me than later series' energy flashes/burns.)

Most of the time, the Federation isn't really trying to kill people. Even several of the 'enemy' races would likely find energy weapons a better deal all around, because it's easier to take prisoners for interrogation and doesn't require you to carry ammunition. The only ones that are clearly out to kill pretty much all the time are the Klingons, and the Klingons are obsessed with hand to hand. They probably only have ranged weapons because everyone else has them and they'd get slaughtered without them.

 

[Marsden]

No question phasers are more versatile and powerful than projectile weapons. But I am specifically thinking of killing, not any other purposes, as I wrote originally. It just looks to me like automatic fire, especially today's high-velocity military fire, would be much more devastating to enemy personnel.


(Aside: I miss TOS annihilation effect. It was just plain cool, and far more impressive to me than later series' energy flashes/burns.)

I always thought that, too. Especially in later series, I always thought a squad of Marines would take out just about any of these people they were fighting. But....

And I remember the first time in TNG when they shot someone, I think "Heart of Glory" and I was wondering what was happening with the phasers killing and there is a body? That just confused me, I think that would be a lot more painful, slow death by cooked liver than just poof.

 

[Shat Happens]

When I watched Aliens (1986) I remember I found it strange that the space Marines still used conventional guns.

 

[T'Girl]

The space marine didn't want to carry around big heavy powercells for their ray guns.

 

[varek]

I think it would be cool to have a weapon, preferably portable, that would fire a projectile that--at a certain distance--would open up and throw a net around the target! Capture him/her/it with minimal (if any) damage.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I think it would be cool to have a weapon, preferably portable, that would fire a projectile that--at a certain distance--would open up and throw a net around the target! Capture him/her/it with minimal (if any) damage.

Queen Industries is working on that.

 

[J.T.B.]

When I watched Aliens (1986) I remember I found it strange that the space Marines still used conventional guns.

I kind of liked that about that movie. Explosives are kind of a nifty way to store energy, and a modern-day rifle cartridge is a pretty efficient package for dumping a few megawatts into a small target space.

The one that always appealed to my imagination was in the book Logan's Run. The Sandmen's guns were like Western six-shooters but you could "dial" they cylinder for different loads: nitro, vapor, tangler, needler, ripper, and homer. I'm not sure what they all did but "nitro" was explosive, "vapor" was like knock-out gas and "homer" was a self-guided projectile that would go after a particular person.

 

[C.E. Evans]

No question phasers are more versatile and powerful than projectile weapons. But I am specifically thinking of killing, not any other purposes, as I wrote originally. It just looks to me like automatic fire, especially today's high-velocity military fire, would be much more devastating to enemy personnel.

Also, about shooting away cover--boulders, etc--I'm sure we've seen characters hiding behind mineral/rocky cover and getting up to fire, then hiding behind the cover with that cover then being struck by some kind of return energy fire, but not being destroyed. Nor do the characters attempt to simply destory the enemy's cover. But I agree that phasers and disruptors should be able to blast through such cover. Maybe this is an inconsistency?

(Aside: I miss TOS annihilation effect. It was just plain cool, and far more impressive to me than later series' energy flashes/burns.)

Most of the time, the Federation isn't really trying to kill people. Even several of the 'enemy' races would likely find energy weapons a better deal all around, because it's easier to take prisoners for interrogation and doesn't require you to carry ammunition. The only ones that are clearly out to kill pretty much all the time are the Klingons, and the Klingons are obsessed with hand to hand. They probably only have ranged weapons because everyone else has them and they'd get slaughtered without them.

Pretty much this. Phaser "kill settings" are really only used against living beings when stun settings are ineffective. Otherwise, those lethal phaser settings are used more often for cutting and welding purposes.

 

[junkdata]

The borg have assimilated countless races. You mean to tell me no one has come at them with guns before? The machine gun worked because it was unexpected. Im sure they would have shields if it became a go to solution.

 

[Melakon]

I think it would be cool to have a weapon, preferably portable, that would fire a projectile that--at a certain distance--would open up and throw a net around the target! Capture him/her/it with minimal (if any) damage.

Queen Industries is working on that.

I thought Acme already invented that in Duck Dodgers in the 24 1/2 Century.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I think it would be cool to have a weapon, preferably portable, that would fire a projectile that--at a certain distance--would open up and throw a net around the target! Capture him/her/it with minimal (if any) damage.

Queen Industries is working on that.

I thought Acme already invented that in Duck Dodgers in the 24 1/2 Century.

Mister Queen does not comment on going litigation.

 

[T'Girl]

would fire a projectile that--at a certain distance--would open up and throw a net around the target!

The Sandmen's guns were like Western six-shooters but you could "dial" they cylinder for different loads: nitro, vapor, tangler, needler, ripper, and homer.

Tangler was a sticky net, took a special chemical to get it off once it closed around the target.

 

[varek]

would fire a projectile that--at a certain distance--would open up and throw a net around the target!

The Sandmen's guns were like Western six-shooters but you could "dial" they cylinder for different loads: nitro, vapor, tangler, needler, ripper, and homer.

Tangler was a sticky net, took a special chemical to get it off once it closed around the target.

Is this what you mean?

http://starfrontiers.us/book/export/html/3833

That's pretty cool!

 

[J.T.B.]

Tangler was a sticky net, took a special chemical to get it off once it closed around the target.

I thought it was something like that but it's been a long time, thanks!