Realistic wanked out swords/close range weapons in sci-fi.

[kinnison]

Three weapons that might be usable in a high-tech environment:

1. Variable-sword. Basically, this is a length of ultrastrong monofilament (i.e. the molecules span the entire length of the fibre) supported by some sort of forcefield to keep it straight. The "variable" bit is the length. This ends up as a nasty slashing weapon.

2. Monofilament whip or garotte. (sp?) This thing is basically a length of ultrastrong wire with a weight on the end - I believe that an implanted version of this was described in Neuromancer. Use: swing the wire around some bit of your opponent (maybe all of him), let it make a turn or two around, and pull. Whatever you just wrapped will probably come off.

3. Variation of the two above - a sword that weighs about the same as a metal one, looks like a rather shiny one, but isn't normal at all - it's actually a stasis-shielded sheet of neutronium, probably about an atom thick or less. Unbreakable without specialised equipment - and as a stasis field (a la Niven) is essentially impenetrable it can indeed deflect beams and bullets. You'd have to be damn good, though. I suppose a variation of this would be a shield (looking like a mediaeval one perhaps) that will stop just about anything - if you get it in the way. And maybe armour as well? (One shield generator per piece, so you can move.)

[Beowulf]

Like I said before, momentum is conserved. If you fired a M1A1 Abrams tank shell at the guy with the forcefield pike, he may be totally unharmed from the impact, but the momentum of the impact is imparted directly into the pike the pikeman. So while the tank shell may have been harmlessly deflected, the structural integrity of the pike may have been compromised (snapping it) or you may have just ripped the guys arm off as the pike rockets backwards with the full force of the shell.

CKEM. Doesn't matter if the shield blocks it. You just got hit with what's essentially a man portable tank shell. You just got turned to paste. And it's probably significantly cheaper than your force pike. It is, after all, mostly a honking huge motor with a cheap guidance system.

[Eleventh Century Remnant]

I love the force-umbrella on the end of a pike idea, and I can easily see the addition of some sort of recoil compensator in the shaft, but shield piercers aside, there are two main problems;

Firstly, the manpower. We're basically talking 16th-17th century here, pike blocks, and the more people you have in a pike block the better it works. They don't call it push of pike for nothing- bodyweight really counts.
This is hell on the short guys, incidentally, who because other people can reach over their shoulders from behind them they get shoved into the front line a lot of the time.

Basically, though, it's an inefficient, manpower- intensive way of fighting. Particularly as there isn't really that much skill involved in pike, which is the great draw of close combat weapons- because the better man wins far more often than not.

Secondly, vulnerability. Do these shield-pike men form testudo? If they do, is it enough to keep out bomblet fragments, blast and other artillery effects? As large a group of men packed closely together as a pike block is, it's just begging for a time-on-target.

If there are any at all, I reckon most advanced close combat weapons would come from adaptations of engineer and pioneer tools. After all, there's precedent- one of the most common world war I close combat weapons was the sharpened entrenching tool. And no, bulldozers probably don't count.

[Zixinus]

Fullerite-urumi (yes it is a rip-off of the Monofilament whip and the Urumi, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urumi)

Descreption: A typically metre long tread of wires made out of buckyball fullerite, one of the hardest and most resistant material known, attached to a handle. With a good slash it can cut trough almost any material known, and when it locks around something, it is very like to saw off almost anything, unless it is cut by a material of similar strength. It is a danger to anyone, including the user. When "sheated" it can be almost anything that has a handle-like, typically looking as something harmless, such as a pen or an antenna of a gadget, but it has been seen as an augmentation. The wires themselves are seen as thin black treads, and creates a peculiar sound as they cuts trough the molecules of the air.

Use: The greatest advantage of the Fullerite-Urami is its ridiculously easy ability to be concealed and impossibility of detection. The tread itself cannot be detected, only its casing. Thus, it is a favoured weapon of assassins that prefer to get their hands dirty, although it is widespread among military officials looking for a surprise when trouble arises, as well as certain diplomats and emissaries, as well as outlaws. Almost any secret service agent swears by it. Ownership of such a weapon is highly illegal, although its ease to hide has made it difficult to enforce this law.

It requires some training and practise to utilise this weapon however, as it can be quite dangerous to the user. It is a weapon that prefers agility and speed over strength.
As a weapon, it quite formidable, although a skilled and experienced fighter can overcome someone armed with such a weapon if they know when and how to strike. Although, even with this is a dangerous and formidable melee weapon. It's favoured use is not only as a "surprise", but when killing someone quickly in a covert manner is important.
However, it still is a bundle of thin tread of wires and thus is not free from quirks and malfunctions at a critical time. The tread is very strong but only so strong and its chemical composition may react, not to mention possible electrostatic shock.

History: The original technology is definitely Slet, although its purpose was non-combat, possibly for microelectronics or simply as wires. It was most likely discovered when a Slet hunter had to improvise and torn off the first thing that was at hand and got lucky. It has been sold on the black market with a smile, and its replication most likely happened there.

Thorfists

Description: A pair of gloves with thin layers of though superconductors at certain key points that have a patch, typically at the knuckles, wrist and flat of hand. Typically, the glove extends to the wrist and fully covers the hand, but variations are possible. The superconductors are typically Slet-like nano-wires, and the patches are there to significantly lower their electromagnetic effects and insulate the energies found within.
The key to this technology is not only the superconductors as that can be mere wires, but the filament: when not under contact and weak pressure it is to contain the energies found within. The difficulty is making it so that when under contact and strong pressure, it is to release the energies contained within, and then retract without harm. Occasionally, a wire connects to the gloves, to a battery unit to further give strength to the superconducters or to give electricity at all. The glove by design has two layers: one to protect the user and one the actual Thorfists.

Use: Due to the nature of the superconductors, the use of Thorfists require some knowledge of their own part to be properly utilised, although this can be gained from mere experimentation. It is used at street fights as a aggressor weapon, both to other gangsters and law enforcement officials that may arrive to the scene. Curiously, it was not meant for this purpose, but for the disablement of law enforcing robots/androids/etc due to their electro-magnetil properties of the Thorfists. For this purpose, special forces also favour this weapon and sometimes can be found of Shells (power armours that doubles as a hazmat suit). Those wielding these weapons typically aim for some exposed sensitive component, such as the sensors, antennas, etc. Still, someone possessing Thorfists is not to be taken lightly when it comes to combat, even if the wielder is an amateur fighter.
Thorfists are sometimes used as a torture device.

History: It is believed to be developed by Rakan Hortier, a rebel during a mayor civil uprising, so his comrades would have an efficient weapon againts the enforcer's robots that were bullet proof (and lasers were not particularly available) but had poor insulation. Like many other weapons, it is found on the black market.

That's all for now. Criticise, discuss, wank, ridicule, mock, praise, whatever. I may have some other ideas.
Again, be creative and do not limit your ideas to military-only application.

[Covenant]

Why so much commentary on my idea? Make up your own weapons instead of trying to find ways to break mine!

BTW, large point for responders, the pikes are not used in massed infantry attacks. Re-read my earlier statements, while I designed it so it could, the usage is in a closed environment where the shield umbrella can be extended wall-to-wall-to-ceiling-to-floor and used that way.

Like I said before, momentum is conserved. If you fired a M1A1 Abrams tank shell at the guy with the forcefield pike, he may be totally unharmed from the impact, but the momentum of the impact is imparted directly into the pike the pikeman. So while the tank shell may have been harmlessly deflected, the structural integrity of the pike may have been compromised (snapping it) or you may have just ripped the guys arm off as the pike rockets backwards with the full force of the shell.

CKEM. Doesn't matter if the shield blocks it. You just got hit with what's essentially a man portable tank shell. You just got turned to paste. And it's probably significantly cheaper than your force pike. It is, after all, mostly a honking huge motor with a cheap guidance system.

Yes, I know, you guys don't need to try to find a way to 'defeat' the forcefield umbrella pike, I've already made mention that there's several ways to crunch it. You could also just drive a jeep into the damn thing, you know, though that risks your jeep being speared--it would, nonetheless, shove everyone back pretty hard. ;D

My point was that you don't need fancy weapon systems to beat a fancy defensive system. I'm also suprised that all of you guys instantly decided to make giant fucking forcefield-equipped nuclear rockets and such things to kill an infantryman with the shield, or big fancy kinetic penetrators, when a laser would pass through the shield basically without a single interaction with it since it's an EM field. IE, the shield would be useless against lasers. The point was to think of a fancy melee weapon with some use, not to think up one that was invincible.

Firstly, the manpower. We're basically talking 16th-17th century here, pike blocks, and the more people you have in a pike block the better it works. They don't call it push of pike for nothing- bodyweight really counts.

Basically, though, it's an inefficient, manpower- intensive way of fighting. Particularly as there isn't really that much skill involved in pike, which is the great draw of close combat weapons- because the better man wins far more often than not.

That's an advantage, not a disadvantage. You could take big heavy powersuited troops, put them in front, and have them advance. They don't need to be well trained, just make them conscripts or who the fuck cares, they just need to be able to stab things. A month of training is all you'd need. Plus, the need for massive manpower and the very noticable push-and-shove between forcewalls would make for a really glorious looking scene in a movie.

If you're going to bend physics over backwards and rape it then you may as well get something aesthetically pleasing from the result. If anyone is honestly saying that's not realistic then I think they're missing the point--melee weapons in a future military environment ARE realistic. We've already established that. The point is, like with FTL, to find an 'as reasonable as possible' way to justify why it's there. I don't think anyone is debating the idea that melee military weapons are utterly outdated in any realistic setting.

Secondly, vulnerability. Do these shield-pike men form testudo? If they do, is it enough to keep out bomblet fragments, blast and other artillery effects? As large a group of men packed closely together as a pike block is, it's just begging for a time-on-target.

In my example, they were. The idea is that they are extremely strong shields but that they're limited by the fact that they're mounted on a man, rather than on a bulky shield housing like in a spaceship. And in a turtle formation, with the pike angled down and up, you've made a an effective curved piece of 'armor' for the purposes of deflecting weaponry. Plus, sticking that many pikes in one place would make the shield very robust, since they are additive.

However, the point of the pike would not be massed infantry. As I stated elsewhere, that's insane. You'd want to put them inside of a ship to repel boarding attempts, or in urban warfare. The use then is to create a shield bubble wall-to-wall that you can advance and force people out--where they have no access to heavy firepower and don't want to rush the shield for fear of the lance tips.

[Covenant]

Oooough... I made a major typo.

melee weapons in a future military environment ARE realistic.

Should be are not

[Ryan Thunder]

No matter how you look at it, a pistol will enable you to kill more people faster at short range than a melee weapon, and its more maneuverable.

We're already dealing with hypothetical scenarios where there are reasons why the melee weapons are more effective than ranged projectile or directed energy weapons, such as "shields" or extremely effective personal armor.

But of course, under such circumstances, you couldn't hope to hurt them in melee anyways. Why are gunpowder weapons so effective? Because they can punch through personal armour better than any melee weapons.

Basically, a situation where the pistol can't reliably stop the kind of big game you're going after, but you have some sort of high tech bashy bashy stick that can.

Well then you've manufactured that. Realistically, you'd want a way to throw that stick at them rather than sit back and poke them with it.

Besides, if I'm not mistaken, having a pistol in close combat does help in 40k rules.

Yes, you get to lump it in the same category as knives/swords/spears/wooden sticks/chainsaws/hammers/etc. Rather stupid of them, especially with the sort of wanky numbers they get for firepower.

..the best gun in the universe WILL help you if your opponent is attempting to bash your brains out with a rock

Not if it's a shoulder-fired long arm, or worse, an unwieldy heavy weapon. If he's close enough to bash your brains out with a rock, he'll also have to be nice enough to take two steps back for you to shoot him.

I was assuming they were referring to a rifle of some sort, which is still maneuverable enough to avoid that. Obviously if your opponent can bash your brains out, its not the best gun in the universe for you.

[Cykeisme]

No matter how you look at it, a pistol will enable you to kill more people faster at short range than a melee weapon, and its more maneuverable.

We're already dealing with hypothetical scenarios where there are reasons why the melee weapons are more effective than ranged projectile or directed energy weapons, such as "shields" or extremely effective personal armor.

But of course, under such circumstances, you couldn't hope to hurt them in melee anyways. Why are gunpowder weapons so effective? Because they can punch through personal armour better than any melee weapons.

Basically, a situation where the pistol can't reliably stop the kind of big game you're going after, but you have some sort of high tech bashy bashy stick that can.

Well then you've manufactured that. Realistically, you'd want a way to throw that stick at them rather than sit back and poke them with it.

Hmm, I see your point.
If the offensive technology can defeat armor with a melee weapon, what's stopping them from making a ranged weapon that can do the same thing?


I imagine that it's a matter of cost of the technology, and minimum scale-down size in its implementation.
"Power" weapons in 40k are fairly expensive, presumably due to complexity of manufacture and materials involved. Expensive enough that you wouldn't be firing power weapons as projectiles.
Second is size.. it's entirely possible that the technology cannot be scaled down any further, so you can't make tiny little power weapons to shoot as flying daggers or darts.

Also take into account that these are giant supermen we're dealing with.


The point is, guns rule here, but it's not difficult to come up with a situation (read: contrivance :p ) where the state of technological advancement between personal protection and miniaturization/cost of personal weapons is such that a bashy-bashy has its place.

[Cykeisme]

Whoops, forgot the end.

..the best gun in the universe WILL help you if your opponent is attempting to bash your brains out with a rock

Not if it's a shoulder-fired long arm, or worse, an unwieldy heavy weapon. If he's close enough to bash your brains out with a rock, he'll also have to be nice enough to take two steps back for you to shoot him.

I was assuming they were referring to a rifle of some sort, which is still maneuverable enough to avoid that. Obviously if your opponent can bash your brains out, its not the best gun in the universe for you.

The best gun in the universe can't be a rifle.
If it was, what's stopping me from scaling it up and making it even better?

Also, I suppose a man with a rifle has a good chance of shooting a man with a rock, even at very close quarters.. but if we replace the rock with a stick (or something sharp) that might work out better.

The entire analogy isn't entirely accurate here though, because we're dealing with a situation where personal armor is effective enough to afford reliable protection against a rifle that's small enough to be used in close combat.


Regarding the points in the earlier post, let me put it this way.
To deliver x amount of energy to a target, and for y amount of weapon mass, depending on the eccentricities of the technologies involved, you might only be able to mete out more energy by having a melee weapon rather than projecting that energy out to range.
Also factor in the cost of the weapon, which may cause a non-recoverable projectile to be unfeasibly expensive.

[Connor MacLeod]

Almost any encounter in any situation where melee weapons could be used, guns or better can be superior. Most people would pick a shotgun over a katana any day.

Oh yes, a shotgun is going to be perfectly accecptable in a stealth situation. I'm sure the muzzle flash and noise will not be a detriment if the sentries are blind and deaf.

Moreover, what happens when you run out of ammo? What if you don't have time to reload in Close Quarters combat? Body armour vs certain projectile weapons is also a consideration, as is "friendly fire" in close quarters (Overpenetration or outright misses. Knives in such cases offer more precision.)

I also like how you assume that "melee weapon" automatically means something large and unwieldy, like a sword or an axe, as opposed to, say, a knife or bayonet. Some melee weapons also can serve dual functions (such as a knife), which is another advantage over a gun.

Lastly, I suppose you're going to tell me that there's a reason why they don't teach hand to hand combat of any kind in modern militaries.. oh wait, they do....

[Zixinus]

Oh yes, a shotgun is going to be perfectly accecptable in a stealth situation. I'm sure the muzzle flash and noise will not be a detriment if the sentries are blind and deaf.

Heard of something called a "silencer"?

Also, a laser will unlikely to make any noise. And so do rocket bullets.

Moreover, what happens when you run out of ammo? What if you don't have time to reload in Close Quarters combat?

If your enemy has guns just as well, and isn't out of ammo, then charging would be a rather suicidal option, don't you think?

I also like how you assume that "melee weapon" automatically means something large and unwieldy, like a sword or an axe, as opposed to, say, a knife or bayonet.

Did I say that those are the ONLY melee weapons in existence? Or you may have noticed that I described two weapons that are not massive.

Lastly, I suppose you're going to tell me that there's a reason why they don't teach hand to hand combat of any kind in modern militaries.. oh wait, they do....

I also suppose that they spend much more time teaching the soldiers how to use a gun then their fists. Also, I recall that only certain forces get training in that area.

What I am trying to avoid, is to get "value of melee weapons in modern warfare" debate, as that one has a rather obvious ending.

[Rye]

Heard of something called a "silencer"?

Shotgun silencers?

Also, a laser will unlikely to make any noise. And so do rocket bullets.

Why would a rocket bullet not make any noise?

If your enemy has guns just as well, and isn't out of ammo, then charging would be a rather suicidal option, don't you think?

What if they have guns and combat knives, you both exhaust your ammo supplies, then you end up in a close fight with them? What if you're a lone sniper in a building, you have an enemy in the building with you within stabbing distance? wouldn't conserving your ammo make sense?

I also suppose that they spend much more time teaching the soldiers how to use a gun then their fists. Also, I recall that only certain forces get training in that area.

I think they all get knife training, correct me if I'm wrong.

[Covenant]

Heard of something called a "silencer"?

Shotgun silencers?

Don't be silly, we all know that stealth situations generally require that people carry silenced pistols, silenced MP5's, or other silenced weapons, like a silenced carbine. Shotguns may be the only weapon not silenced, but they're also the only weapon you generally don't brind on a stealth mixxion. Zuul never said you would. He said nearly any time a melee wepaon would be good, a gun would be better. Are you honestly saying that a knife or a frickin' sword is going to be more useful in your average non-ninja realistic stealth situation than ye olde silenced pistol?

At best you'd want to take a knife or some garrote wire with you, in case you wanted to kill someone rather quietly and were behind them, but you know that stabbing someone can get really, really noisy, right? If you don't cut them just right so they die and can't scream, they'll either flail around--possibily firing their firearm, kicking, banging, gurgling... or they'll possibly make some noises before they keel over.

In either situation, a bullet to the back of the head seems to work far superior for keeping people absolutely silent, and evenf or these situations a knife wouldn't be the best option. You'd be better off with some small, ultra-silenced type of hand pistol or some kind of knockout weapon.

[Zixinus]

Shotgun silencers? Confused

I was thinking in more general terms.

Why would a rocket bullet not make any noise?

Because the GryoJet rocket bullets didn't, and they were real rocket bullets, so it is likely that other rocket bullets will be relatively quiet.

Probably the only plus of this weapon was that it indeed was more or less silent - when fired, it produced a short hiss, sort of a pierced tire sound, clearly different from any typical gunshot.

Okay, so there is a some noise, but only a relatively quiet and strange "whosh" as opposed to a "BANG!!!" sound where everyone knows where you are. Also, if someone doesn't know the sound of the thing fired, they won't know its a weapon.

What if they have guns and combat knives, you both exhaust your ammo supplies, then you end up in a close fight with them?

True, but fairly rare situation, don't you think? Also, aren't there backup weapons?

What if you're a lone sniper in a building, you have an enemy in the building with you within stabbing distance?

Depends on the situation. If we are talking about a battlefield situation, then using some sort of melee weapon if a suppressed weapon is not available is an option, although a rather desperate one. However, if you are on the battlefield alone, you should try to avoid detection, same is true if you are an assassin.

wouldn't conserving your ammo make sense?

It does, but doesn't avoiding attention make more sense? Or bringing a handier backup weapon, a suppressed/silenced one if you are keen on avoiding attention?

A good melee weapon can be worth one's life in the right hands, but a good silenced pistol can be even more. The only reason why one would bring a melee weapon instead of a ranged one, is because the user is cannot use the ranged weapon for some reason.

[Connor MacLeod]

Heard of something called a "silencer"?

Yes. Are you really stupid enough to believe all suppressors will magically mask all sounds of a bullet like they do in the movies? Do you even know how suppressors work?

Also, a laser will unlikely to make any noise. And so do rocket bullets.

Provide proof to back up your assertion. Now. I want to know how weapons that can involve explosive vaporization as part of their effects woudl be "silent".

If your enemy has guns just as well, and isn't out of ammo, then charging would be a rather suicidal option, don't you think?

Red herring. Where the fuck did I say anything about charging? I'm talking CLOSE QUARTERS combat. Try to fucking pay attention.

Did I say that those are the ONLY melee weapons in existence? Or you may have noticed that I described two weapons that are not massive.

Oh, so I suppose you jumping to the conclusion that I meant something like a katana in combat (your own words, no less) was purely accidental? Seriously, did you even read my response before making your idiotic knee-jerk reply?

I also suppose that they spend much more time teaching the soldiers how to use a gun then their fists. Also, I recall that only certain forces get training in that area.

The marines do. We can ask one of the marines on this board if you like. I have a feeling they wouldn't consider a knife or the ability to fight in hand to hand as "uesless" as you seem to think it is.

Oh yeah, and yet another red herring on your part. My referencing the hand to hand training is precisely because it is NOT considered nearly as useless as you seem to think it does. The "time spent" on either is irrelevant to that little fact. Though since you chose to bring it up, maybe you'd care to provide some further proof to back up THOSE claims too?

[Covenant]

Provide proof to back up your assertion. Now. I want to know how weapons that can involve explosive vaporization as part of their effects woudl be "silent".

Oh for crap's sake, just google it yourself before getting all hardass, he's actually right. Here's a video of a Gyrojet being fired. The gun makes a little pfft noise and the guy isn't even wearing ear protection. The Gyrojet is not absolutely silent, but it is very much similar to a variety fo suppressed weapons. They sucked, but they sure didn't make much noise.

From here.

As a Recon man I liked the weapon just fine: light, quiet, low-maintenance, and a hell of a punch. I lay beside a well-traveled trail ‘deep within enemy territory’ for most of a day waiting to shoot some poor suffering NVA bastard in the hip with it, but no one ever came.

Never did shoot anyone with it. It was not silent, not like the true silenced .22 Hi-standards we often carried. But it was quiet, made a sort of "Psssssst!" sound like air escaping from a truck tire, maybe a half-second long. People would hear it, look around curiously like ‘What the hell was that?’ and go about their business, because it didn't SOUND like a weapon, it didn't SOUND dangerous! (I fired it in camp several times, demonstrating it, never got any attention at all.)”

[Connor MacLeod]

Oh for crap's sake, just google it yourself before getting all hardass, he's actually right. Here's a video of a Gyrojet being fired. The gun makes a little pfft noise and the guy isn't even wearing ear protection. The Gyrojet is not absolutely silent, but it is very much similar to a variety fo suppressed weapons. They sucked, but they sure didn't make much noise.

From here.

As a Recon man I liked the weapon just fine: light, quiet, low-maintenance, and a hell of a punch. I lay beside a well-traveled trail ‘deep within enemy territory’ for most of a day waiting to shoot some poor suffering NVA bastard in the hip with it, but no one ever came.

Never did shoot anyone with it. It was not silent, not like the true silenced .22 Hi-standards we often carried. But it was quiet, made a sort of "Psssssst!" sound like air escaping from a truck tire, maybe a half-second long. People would hear it, look around curiously like ‘What the hell was that?’ and go about their business, because it didn't SOUND like a weapon, it didn't SOUND dangerous! (I fired it in camp several times, demonstrating it, never got any attention at all.)”

I was bloody well aware of that in fact, ,having actually googled it (which you can link to from the wiki entry. There's also the "Deathwing" page who are trying to revive gyrojets.")

did you fail to notice, however, what he was actually claiming WRT gyrojets?

Also, a laser will unlikely to make any noise. And so do rocket bullets.

As the links (including the Deathwind site) indicate, they aren't as loud as guns, ,but they still make a noticable noise when firing, and when they go supersonic they will also make a crack. (Suppressors incidentally cannot dampen a supersonic projectile either.)

Although if you choose to be pedantic about it, why the fuck is "noise" assumed to be the only stealth-based problem a firearm has? The visual effects of a laser (or any such weapon) are also an issue.

Edit: removing something already posted that I probably should have noticed.


ERgo, it makes fucking noise. Not alot of noise, but its still bloody noticable. (It does seem to lack the crack, but then again given that the MBA verisions seemed to have a MV of around ~900 fps, its still subsonic, so it at least avoids THAT problem.)

[Covenant]

I was bloody well aware of that in fact, ,having actually googled it (which you can link to from the wiki entry. There's also the "Deathwing" page who are trying to revive gyrojets.")

did you fail to notice, however, what he was actually claiming WRT gyrojets?

I'm not familiar with 'WRT' as an abbreviation, but I don't know of any kind of gyrojet besides the gyrojet we used back-in-the-day which were silent. I interperted his statement as thus. Since you asked for proof that rockety sorts of bullets can be 'silent' I didn't think it would be unusual to provide you with evidence of it. What are you taking issue to?

Although if you choose to be pedantic about it, why the fuck is "noise" assumed to be the only stealth-based problem a firearm has? The visual effects of a laser (or any such weapon) are also an issue.

A laser has no more big visual effect than a bullet, you know, not really. The beam isn't visible in transition--and though there will be a flash on the target, a body flopping to the ground in a burst of flesh isn't 'silent' or invsible either. So lasers are still no more 'visible' than a bullet, while being quieter. Ideally you're shooting someone where nobody is going to see him disappear from, and in either case--laser or bullet--sound is just about the only tipoff.

[Covenant]

Don't edit to add in new stuff, especially when it's from what I already posted. Did you even read what I posted? I can't imagine you did--you reposted what I said. He said it wasn't strictly silenced, but nobody even knew it was a weapon, so it didn't raise any eyebrows. And as the other link I showed you demonstrated, it didn't make any more noise than a suppressed round.

[Connor MacLeod]

I'm not familiar with 'WRT' as an abbreviation,

With Regard To

but I don't know of any kind of gyrojet besides the gyrojet we used back-in-the-day which were silent. I interperted his statement as thus. Since you asked for proof that rockety sorts of bullets can be 'silent' I didn't think it would be unusual to provide you with evidence of it. What are you taking issue to?

I'm taking issue with the fact that you (and he) seem to be claiming gyrojets are "silent" rather than being "not very noisy". There is a distinction, and its rather a significant one. Besides, I updated my own response with further data on that anyhow.

A laser has no more big visual effect than a bullet, you know, not really. The beam isn't visible in transition--and though there will be a flash on the target, a body flopping to the ground in a burst of flesh isn't 'silent' or invsible either. So lasers are still no more 'visible' than a bullet, while being quieter. Ideally you're shooting someone where nobody is going to see him disappear from, and in either case--laser or bullet--sound is just about the only tipoff.

Let's go with the trusty atomic rockets site, because I love Nyrath's work.

What would the beam look like?

This depends on a number of things. If the beam is in the visible part of the spectrum, you get a noticeable path through clean air at indoor lighting intensities. I am not sure if it will be visible out of doors under full sunlight, but you could see it at night. The beam will be widest at the aperture of the gun, probably a few centimeters across to keep the optics from being damaged by the intense light. The beam will converge to a spot a millimeter or so across at the target. In unclean air, the beam will be a lot more visible. This Rayleigh scattering is linear, so the total integrated brightness across the cross section of the beam should be constant, if we neglect the gradual attenuation of the beam due to the light being scattered out of it. Higher frequency light scatters much more than lower frequency light, so a blue beam would be much more visible than a red one.

When a visible beam is incident on the target, it creates a very bright flash of the same color as the beam. This may temporarily dazzle those looking at it, and the beam itself may be overlooked because of the bright flash obscuring it.

If the weapon lases in the UV, the intense pulse may cause multi-photon ionization of atoms in the air, causing a fluorescent glow along the path of the beam (possibly red, green, or violet, I'm not quite sure what sparsely ionized air at atmospheric pressure looks like). Since this process is non-linear, it will be dimmest near the aperture where the beam is widest, and most intense nearer the target. Weapon designers will probably try to minimize this effect, since it leads to attenuation of the beam and subsequent loss of effectiveness.

Near IR beams are likely to only be visible if there are relatively large pieces of dust, lint, or pollen floating around, which will glow incandescent as they burn under the irradiation of your beam. I doubt beams in the "thermal" IR range would be used, even though the air is fairly transparent to these wavelengths, because with short, intense pulses you tend to get cascade ionization with these lower frequencies, and this will completely absorb the beam.

Beams at non-visible frequencies will also make a flash and a bang where incident on the target from the expanding plasma of their explosion, but nowhere near as bright as that of a visible beam.

In vacuum, of course, the beam itself is always invisible, but you can still see the flashes at the target.

Will the beam be invisible or bright enough to be blinding?

It is quite likely to be both. The beam itself may be invisible or minimally visible, but if even a tiny fraction of the beam is specularly scattered into your eye, near IR and visible and some near UV will be focused to a diffraction limited spot on your retina, causing burns and permanent scarring. This can lead to degradation of vision or total blindness. Interestingly, the brain compensates for blind spots on the retina, so that you might have lost up to 60% of your vision from multiple exposures to beams and you still think you can see just fine. Also interestingly, the fluid in our eyes can cause a small amount of non-linear upconversion of intense coherent light that passes through it, so when directly exposed to a near IR beam, you may actually see it as two IR photons are combined into one visible photon with twice the frequency. Some people who have been blinded by pulsed neodymium lasers (which lase at around 1 micron near IR) have reported that the last thing they ever saw was a green flash (green, at 0.5 micron, has half the wavelength and twice the frequency of the 1 micron neodymium line).


Anyone likely to be using a laser will probably wear protective goggles or contacts. With today's technology, you would probably make them out of an optical band gap material that excludes a very narrow window of light centered on the laser's frequency. This means that the people who fired the lasers would not be able to see the beams or flashes of their own weapons (assuming they used visible light lasers). They would still see the flashes from the plasma explosions, though, plus incandescence of suspended atmospheric particles and fluorescence from multi-photon absorption.

What would it sound like?

The actual mechanism of producing the laser beam could sound like anything, from complete silence, to the click of an electrical contact, to a sharp, electric snap, to a gunshot-like thunderclap.

The beam, when incident upon its target, will make a nice bang.

The pistol won't make a "zap" sound, will it?

If the beam is repeated rapidly it might, however, make a buzz. It might end up sounding quite electrical at a few hundred Hertz.

Will it be too quiet to hear or will be loud enough to cause hearing loss? Will it sound like an extended explosion as the series of steam detonations bore a hole?

Remember that the temporary cavity caused by the explosions only lasts a few milliseconds, so the beam has to have completed its work of piercing the target at this time. The individual explosions will be too closely spaced (microseconds apart) to be individually audible. Since shocks are always supersonic to the air in their path, and subsonic to the moving air left behind them, multiple subsequent shocks from the same source tend to merge into one stronger shock. Thus, each pulse probably makes one bang. The bang comes from a series of explosions whose total energy is about the same as that of the gunpowder detonating in a firing rifle, so it will probably be about as loud.

I got the sound/look thing turned around, but the basic conclusion is, a.) some of the visual/auditory effects can vary depending on the laser but b.) certain things (flash on the target and the noise of the target) are fairly consistent, and not quite as silent as you seem.

About the only way I can possibly think of getting around any of the above is to go with a continuous beam laser (like a cutting beam) but there you run the problems of thermal blooming (where the laser depositing energy on the target creates a cloud of vapor that continues to absorb the weapons energy, preventing it from further damaging the target - you often need to pulse the laser to give time for the cloud to disperse between shots.)

[Connor MacLeod]

Don't edit to add in new stuff, especially when it's from what I already posted. Did you even read what I posted?

I admit I skipped over that part, and apologize for that. I clicked on the link to read that (which was more complicated.) I'll just remove it since you already posted it.

I can't imagine you did--you reposted what I said. He said it wasn't strictly silenced, but nobody even knew it was a weapon, so it didn't raise any eyebrows. And as the other link I showed you demonstrated, it didn't make any more noise than a suppressed round.

Yes and? That only means the weapon will work in a setting where noone has encountered such weapons ever before (as the guy notes.) Why would you assume that to be the case in every single circumstnace.

Moreover, if the weapon IS similar to a suppressed round, don't you think someone who is supposed to be on guard would be alert for strange noises (or such like that?) I still fail to see how "its not very noisy" is supposed to be equal to "its silent", which is the entire fucking point I am getting across.

[Covenant]

That's certainly true, but then we've basically eliminated every noisemaking device whatsoever. Wouldn't a hand-to-hand melee of some variety make some noise? I think we are, again, really heavily depending on the ability of the guy in question being able to get next to the guard unnoticed and then stab that guy well enough that he can't make any noise, discharge his firearm, or flail around. If a little 'pfft' from a suppressed round is too obtrusive, I'm not sure too many hand-to-hand weapons are going to be able to do the job in a similar circumstance.

[Connor MacLeod]

That's certainly true, but then we've basically eliminated every noisemaking device whatsoever. Wouldn't a hand-to-hand melee of some variety make some noise?

That would depend on the kind of "hand to hand melee" you think of, I imagine. A knife in a vital area would be rather more silent, I would imagine. Using your bare hands (unless youo're insanely strong) is probably less so.

I think we are, again, really heavily depending on the ability of the guy in question being able to get next to the guard unnoticed and then stab that guy well enough that he can't make any noise, discharge his firearm, or flail around.

Possibly, but why the heck would you assume "one guy" alone does all the stabbing neccesarily? Usually under such cases where things might be done, there's going to be multiple individuals (special forces, scouts, infiltrators, etc.)

If a little 'pfft' from a suppressed round is too obtrusive, I'm not sure too many hand-to-hand weapons are going to be able to do the job in a similar circumstance.

In most practical (or modern) contexts you're probably looking at a bayonet or a knife (something small and very manuverable close in.)

Edit: I should note that "bayonet/knives" were precisely the weapons I was thinking of when this all started. A bloody katana, sword, or axe is obviously too large and unwieldy to be practical under most cases (excecpt maybe Warhammer 40K.)

And to be perfectly blunt, with any reliably silenced weapon, you'll probably have to get close in anyhow to ensure hitting some place vital, (like the .22 mentioned by the guy you quoted and then I quoted again for no good reason.) I doubt a subsonic 9mm or .22 would penetrate body armor (going by here Hell, higher levels seem like they'd protect against .45s rather well (and a .45 is going to be harder to silence due to its greater pressure.)

[PeZook]

"Stealth missions" are kind of a brainbug, though. They're only "stealth" untill the shooting starts, nobody's running around in the dark stabbing (or shooting) guards, because that's just asking for unoforeseen trouble.

Only in computer games do you get the "Shoot a non-silenced weapon and get everyone running towards you" syndrome. If you're attacking an installation, a ship, rail yard etc. and achieved surprise, then you win and don't need to play with supressors or knives, because the attack should be over before anyone goes past the "WTF?!" stage.

[Connor MacLeod]

"Stealth missions" are kind of a brainbug, though. They're only "stealth" untill the shooting starts, nobody's running around in the dark stabbing (or shooting) guards, because that's just asking for unoforeseen trouble.

Only in computer games do you get the "Shoot a non-silenced weapon and get everyone running towards you" syndrome. If you're attacking an installation, a ship, rail yard etc. and achieved surprise, then you win and don't need to play with supressors or knives, because the attack should be over before anyone goes past the "WTF?!" stage.

Hm, I suppose not. Then again, it would still be of some use in getting the drop on someone (ambushing), ,though I suspect if you're trying to infiltrate or scout, you might still need to take someone out quick or silent. (just maybe not large numbers of people.)

Edit: And I wasn't thinking the "first person shooter" type syndrome. I was thinking more like "you need to take out at least one guy so you can sneak into enemy camp/building/whatnot and do whatever you need to do." The same could apply to what I said in ambushes (getting the drop on people unprepared for an attack. I still imagine silencing at least some of the guards would be prudent in such a case.)