StarDestroyer.Net BBS

SPOILER SPACE>............


COME ON SPOILERS>





.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.

.,.
.
.
.
.

Federation Phaser Rifles are apparently made by Enfield in the
24th Century...

They break just like the SA-80!

Oh god, I cannot wait till Rob Wilson sees Nemesis!

Rob Wilson?

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Rob Wilson?

Bigass mofo...former Brit Army Sniper.....hates the
Enfield SA-80 like no other.......

Well at a guess, I would say Picards weapon had been damaged earlier and simply broke at that point. In Insurection, Worf uses his rifle like a baseball bat against a Drone without a problem. In First Contact, again he uses it like one when he breaks a drones neck by smashing it. SF's attempted to do the same, though they didn't have the strength and were simply backhanded by drones into walls.

Picard is just stronger than he looks?

Uraniun235 wrote:Picard is just stronger than he looks?

Hardly. He did not swing the weapon very quickly.

Federation power technology combined with the L85? DON’T DROP ONE OR WHERE ALL DEAD!!!

Master of Ossus wrote:

Uraniun235 wrote:Picard is just stronger than he looks?

Hardly. He did not swing the weapon very quickly.

WOW, THANK YOU CAPTAIN OBVIOUS.

WHAT NEXT, THE MYSTERY OF THE CHICKEN'S MOTIVATIONS BEHIND CROSSING THE ROAD IS REVEALED?

You know, the more I see of you, the more I dislike you. Are you sure you're not Rocketgirl in disguise?

Uraniun235 wrote:

Master of Ossus wrote:

Uraniun235 wrote:Picard is just stronger than he looks?

Hardly. He did not swing the weapon very quickly.

WOW, THANK YOU CAPTAIN OBVIOUS.

WHAT NEXT, THE MYSTERY OF THE CHICKEN'S MOTIVATIONS BEHIND CROSSING THE ROAD IS REVEALED?

You know, the more I see of you, the more I dislike you. Are you sure you're not Rocketgirl in disguise?

Generally, flaming super-mods is not recommended behavior on this board. In this case, I don't really care. You ignore logic and reason when beaten over the head with it. Just look at your points in the thread on SF fleet sizes.

Well MoO, what do you expect from someone who can't spell "uranium?"

But seriously, I find the "it's a defective unit that got past quality control" excuse to be particularly funny. Is manufacturing technology in the 24th century that poor?

As an engineer, I would point out that it's hardly inconceivable for newer rifles to be weaker. When you ramp up production, you need to cut costs, and one popular way to do that is by cutting back on wall thickness or changing your process (eg- replace a drop-forged alloy part with a low-carbon stamped-steel part). The gun may look the same, but it might be far weaker.

I'm sure someone will say that this doesn't matter in communist societies, but contrary to popular idiot belief, the distribution of resources in communist societies does not magically become limitless.

AdmiralKanos wrote:Well MoO, what do you expect from someone who can't spell "uranium?"

But seriously, I find the "it's a defective unit that got past quality control" excuse to be particularly funny. Is manufacturing technology in the 24th century that poor?

As an engineer, I would point out that it's hardly inconceivable for newer rifles to be weaker. When you ramp up production, you need to cut costs, and one popular way to do that is by cutting back on wall thickness or changing your process (eg- replace a drop-forged alloy part with a low-carbon stamped-steel part). The gun may look the same, but it might be far weaker.

I'm sure someone will say that this doesn't matter in communist societies, but contrary to popular idiot belief, the distribution of resources in communist societies does not magically become limitless.

Well... That does actually fit hand in hand with the Type-3b rifle going from practically non production to heavy production given its age in service now.

MKSheppard wrote:Federation Phaser Rifles are apparently made by Enfield in the
24th Century...

They break just like the SA-80!

Oh god, I cannot wait till Rob Wilson sees Nemesis!

All this means is Einfield has been taken over by the same drunk monkeys that made the SA-80.

Master of Ossus wrote:Generally, flaming super-mods is not recommended behavior on this board. In this case, I don't really care. You ignore logic and reason when beaten over the head with it. Just look at your points in the thread on SF fleet sizes.

Really? Telling someone you don't like them and expressing frustration with their inability to grasp the joke is flaming?

And I looked. I made two posts, and then I left the thread, effectively conceding. How did I "ignore logic and reason when beaten over the head with it"?

Uraniun235 wrote:

Master of Ossus wrote:Generally, flaming super-mods is not recommended behavior on this board. In this case, I don't really care. You ignore logic and reason when beaten over the head with it. Just look at your points in the thread on SF fleet sizes.

Really? Telling someone you don't like them and expressing frustration with their inability to grasp the joke is flaming?

Let's see what you wrote, shall we?

You know, the more I see of you, the more I dislike you. Are you sure you're not Rocketgirl in disguise?

I'll leave everyone to set their own standards for flaming.

And I looked. I made two posts, and then I left the thread, effectively conceding. How did I "ignore logic and reason when beaten over the head with it"?

Let's see what you wrote during your two posts in the other thread.

First off, you're a bloody fool if you think every damn starship in the Federation was moving towards the Neutral Zone at that point.

Also, you're suggesting that the resources of one starship with a limited amount of expertise can definitively determine that thousands of starships, as well as space stations and other defenses would be totally ineffective in finding the Scimitar. Advanced as the E-E is, it's still only one ship. I was under the impression that one criticism of ST was the portrayal of mere starship engineers as being able to know and do everything... guess I was wrong.

The bulk of Starfleet's forces is still at other places. I was referring to "the entire starfleet", not just "the fleet seen in the map room".

So, after making one post, your second post claims that I am a "bloody fool if you think that every ship in the" UFP was moving to the Neutral Zone. I explained to you why that was wrong. I also explained to you how the rest of your statement was wrong, later in the thread. You DID leave, but you brought up inane arguments, first.

Chris O'Farrell wrote:Well at a guess, I would say Picards weapon had been damaged earlier and simply broke at that point. In Insurection, Worf uses his rifle like a baseball bat against a Drone without a problem. In First Contact, again he uses it like one when he breaks a drones neck by smashing it. SF's attempted to do the same, though they didn't have the strength and were simply backhanded by drones into walls.

When did the rifle have the chance to be damaged? It went from Picard beaming over to the Scimitar, him shooting up some Remans, then him whacking the one with his rifle, breaking it. I don't see where the rifle had the chance to be busted.

Besides, he would only be offloading the problem to some offscreen incident where the rifle was damaged and which was so insignificant they didn't bother showing it, which begs the question of why that would have damaged the rifle.

Besides, what kind of damage leaves no crack yet causes the whole thing to shatter on a light impact?

As an engineer, I would point out that it's hardly inconceivable for newer rifles to be weaker. When you ramp up production, you need to cut costs, and one popular way to do that is by cutting back on wall thickness or changing your process (eg- replace a drop-forged alloy part with a low-carbon stamped-steel part). The gun may look the same, but it might be far weaker.

One obvious real life example would be the Soviet AK rifle series.

The first AK-47's had forged steel receivers.

After a few years the AKM was developed. It had a stamped sheet steel receiver that was pinned in place instead of the forged steel one of the original AK-47. This was both cheaper to manufacture (no milling work on a solid steel block) and lighter in weight than the original design.

Glocksman wrote: One obvious real life example would be the Soviet AK rifle series.

The first AK-47's had forged steel receivers.

After a few years the AKM was developed. It had a stamped sheet steel receiver that was pinned in place instead of the forged steel one of the original AK-47. This was both cheaper to manufacture (no milling work on a solid steel block) and lighter in weight than the original design.

And it was a POS....the Russians promptly went back to milled steel blocks
for the AK....and after quite some time, they worked the bugs out of
the stamped AK reciever....

MKSheppard wrote:
And it was a POS....the Russians promptly went back to milled steel blocks
for the AK....and after quite some time, they worked the bugs out of
the stamped AK reciever....

You learn something everyday I guess. I didn't know the Soviets had problems with the cheaper construction of the AKM- when did they work it out?

and after quite some time, they worked the bugs out of
the stamped AK reciever....

Wasn't that by the mid 1960's?

Anyway, that's just one example of a weapon design being modified for economy during a production run. Another example would be the Thompson SMG.

Just compare a M1928 model to an M1A1.
The M1A1 is much more simplified, easier to produce, and lacks certain features (cutts compensator, blish lock) when compared to the M1928