Stupid handphaser design explained?

[Ted C]

We all know the Federation handphaser is an ergonomic nightmare.

Is it possible that it's the bizarre result of decades of Federation gun control laws?

See the H.R. 2038, Is this for real?! thread. Apparently gun control laws often describe banned weapons by characteristics like...

`(H) A semiautomatic shotgun that has--

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a pistol grip;

`(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine; or

`(iv) a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds.

So what if the Federation began banning weaponry based on description. What if they passed a law like the following:

Personal energy weapons are illegal. A weapon is a directed energy device with the following characteristics:
1) A pistol grip with a trigger to activate the energy release
2) A trigger guard
3) A detachable power source
4) Raised projections on the surface that could be used for aiming energy at distant targets

Idiotic? Yes. But would it explain phasers?

[YT300000]

Yes, it would. It would also explain why type 3s and the FC pp's are all military models, while types 1 and 2 are for civilians.

[johnmarkley]

We all know the Federation handphaser is an ergonomic nightmare.

Is it possible that it's the bizarre result of decades of Federation gun control laws?

See the H.R. 2038, Is this for real?! thread. Apparently gun control laws often describe banned weapons by characteristics like...

`(H) A semiautomatic shotgun that has--

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a pistol grip;

`(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine; or

`(iv) a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds.

So what if the Federation began banning weaponry based on description. What if they passed a law like the following:

Personal energy weapons are illegal. A weapon is a directed energy device with the following characteristics:
1) A pistol grip with a trigger to activate the energy release
2) A trigger guard
3) A detachable power source
4) Raised projections on the surface that could be used for aiming energy at distant targets

Idiotic? Yes. But would it explain phasers?

That would force Federation civilians to use badly designed weapons, but it still wouldn't explain why so many Federation military personnel use such weapons. I mean, it's not as if the U.S. Army limits itself to weapons permitted for civilian use.

[johnmarkley]

Blast! The moment I hit "Submit," an idea hits me. Now that I think about, your idea is actually more plausible than I had thought.
It's possible, based on the demilitarized, quasicivilian, pajama-wearing Starfleet of the TNG era, that Starfleet had switched to more civilian-style weapons in order to maintain the appearance that Starfleet is no longer a military. It would fit the nonmilitary atmosphere Starfleet seemed to be aiming for in that era (e.g. civilians and family members on board, ununiformed Starfleet personnel on the bridge, etc.) We first started to see the more rifle-like weapons after the Borg and Dominion threats became apparent, which presumably reminded Starfleet how dangerous the galaxy could be and encouraged them to arm their men more suitably.

[Howedar]

What a curious idea. I kinda like it.

[Superman]

You know, maybe the Trek design is not so bad. This is why. It does not rely on a chemical explosion to propel a projectile like a handgun. Given the way a handgun works, the design for them workswell. Phasers, though, have no recoil and shoot beams of energy. Maybe the phaser design suits this type of weapon.

Then again, maybe I don't know what I am talking about and am totally wrong.

[Howedar]

Ergonomics has nothing to do with the type of weapon. Neither does aiming. Nor do safety elements like trigger guards.

[SPOOFE]

Idiotic? Yes.

Most recent gun control measures are.

[Jeremy]

I second that.

[Master of Ossus]

You know, maybe the Trek design is not so bad. This is why. It does not rely on a chemical explosion to propel a projectile like a handgun. Given the way a handgun works, the design for them workswell. Phasers, though, have no recoil and shoot beams of energy. Maybe the phaser design suits this type of weapon.

Then again, maybe I don't know what I am talking about and am totally wrong.

While the phaser does not suffer from the recoil of modern pistols and other assorted weapons (if it did, it might actually injure the user due to its truly bizarre design), the phaser's design still makes the weapon EXTREMELY difficult to aim accurately, as sighting along the barrel is impossible. This spectacularly limits range, preventing accurate firing beyond a few tens of meters at best.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

You know, maybe the Trek design is not so bad. This is why. It does not rely on a chemical explosion to propel a projectile like a handgun. Given the way a handgun works, the design for them workswell. Phasers, though, have no recoil and shoot beams of energy. Maybe the phaser design suits this type of weapon.

Then again, maybe I don't know what I am talking about and am totally wrong.

Learn something about guns other then what you see on TV and come back.

[YT300000]

I would love to have a Type 1 phaser. Just weld on some sights, a handgrip with a trigger guard and use a system of pulleys to make a trigger operate the phasers button "trigger."

Then walk around zapping people.

[Sea Skimmer]

Then again, maybe I don't know what I am talking about and am totally wrong.

That would be the case

[Equinox2003]

That is a well thought out idea, and it seems plausible. And with the
number of people who obsess over the TNG era phasers, This should
go over quite well.

[Ted C]

You know, maybe the Trek design is not so bad. This is why. It does not rely on a chemical explosion to propel a projectile like a handgun. Given the way a handgun works, the design for them workswell. Phasers, though, have no recoil and shoot beams of energy. Maybe the phaser design suits this type of weapon.

The problem with phasers is that the design makes them inherently difficult to aim. They have no sighting mechanism whatsoever.

The reloading mechanism isn't obvious; you probably have to take the thing apart to replace the battery or put the whole weapon into a charger.

The design isn't safe to handle. There is no trigger guard to keep the weapon from discharging if accidentally dropped or passed to someone else.

The thing is an ergonomic and utilitarian nightmare.

[Ted C]

It's possible, based on the demilitarized, quasicivilian, pajama-wearing Starfleet of the TNG era, that Starfleet had switched to more civilian-style weapons in order to maintain the appearance that Starfleet is no longer a military. It would fit the nonmilitary atmosphere Starfleet seemed to be aiming for in that era (e.g. civilians and family members on board, ununiformed Starfleet personnel on the bridge, etc.) We first started to see the more rifle-like weapons after the Borg and Dominion threats became apparent, which presumably reminded Starfleet how dangerous the galaxy could be and encouraged them to arm their men more suitably.

I was thinking more along the lines of industry adapting to regulation. As the Federation implemented increasingly restrictive weapon control laws, the industry would produce new designs that complied.

Eventually, of course, the Federation apparently just took control of the industries completely (since we see all the signs of a communist economy by the 24th century), but by that time the bizarre phaser designs made to comply with old "phaser control laws" would actually have been standard. Keeping these standards might suit the communist government, since local governments or rebellious factions wouldn't have access to anything that could seriously threaten the Federation's forces.

Only when they found themselves at war with technologically equal or superior adversaries did they think to redesign their weapons for greater ease of use (thereby reducing the amount of training needed for them).

It's worth noting that Romulan, Klingon, and Cardassian designs are all much more sensible than Federation designs.

[The Third Man]

Could the lack of a trigger-guard be some sort of holdover from the days when 'space' weaponry was designed to operated by someone wearing a gloved spacesuit? I remember seeing a WW2 rifle for alpine troops that had a removeable triggerguard so that mountain troops could operate it whilst wearing gloves. If very early space weaponry was trigger-guardless tradition could keep this impractical design in use for reasons of pride and esprit-de-corps.

[Ted C]

Could the lack of a trigger-guard be some sort of holdover from the days when 'space' weaponry was designed to operated by someone wearing a gloved spacesuit? I remember seeing a WW2 rifle for alpine troops that had a removeable triggerguard so that mountain troops could operate it whilst wearing gloves. If very early space weaponry was trigger-guardless tradition could keep this impractical design in use for reasons of pride and esprit-de-corps.

Doubtful. We've seen the fire buttons on TOS-era "Phaser 1" units as well as TNG-era hand phasers, and they're too small to be easily operable using heavy gloves; you could easily "fat finger" the trigger and blow someones arm off if you tried to use a TNG hand phaser with gloved hands. Besides, in Enterprise, they use a fairly sensible pistol design even though they wear space suits much more often than they do in TOS or TNG.

[Drooling Iguana]

There's still no trigger guards on the ENT phase-pistols, and no sights, but other than that they're far superior to what they use in the 24th century. We even saw their reloading mechanism in one episode.

[Howedar]

Even with no sights, one can sight along the top of the unit.

[Drooling Iguana]

The top of the unit is convex.

[Patrick Ogaard]

We do see one TNG-era low-yield phaser pistol, albeit a nonfunctional one, being held by a Federation civilian. That would be in The Survivors. Sure, the weapon, like the entire small estate, was a Douwd simulation, but one that passed unremarked by Worf and Picard. They accepted the weapon as genuine and apparently not out of place for a colonist to have.

Going by memory, the gun in question had an almost conventional pistol shape, with a prominent hand guard instead of a trigger guard.

My own idea regarding the bizarre design of the hand phaser or phaser 2 is that the weapon is supposed to be usable without modifications by as many Federation species as possible, including non-humanoid species. Unfortunately, that disregarded the simple fact that most of the species that actually contribute members to Starfleet are, in fact, humanoids that should be perfectly comfortable and much more effective using a conventional pistol design.

Chalk it up to a political decision to make the personal weapons of Starfleet as "inclusive" as possible at the cost of actual effectiveness.

The TOS concept of a modular phaser 1 / phaser 2 combination would have been more reasonable and effective. The phaser 2 units could then have been tailored to species-specific ergonomics, though the conventional phaser pistol design should have been the most common.

[Sea Skimmer]

Could the lack of a trigger-guard be some sort of holdover from the days when 'space' weaponry was designed to operated by someone wearing a gloved spacesuit? I remember seeing a WW2 rifle for alpine troops that had a removeable triggerguard so that mountain troops could operate it whilst wearing gloves.

Unlikely, while one or two nations did do that, most and everyone today, simply made the guard somewhat larger so a gloved finger would fit.

[Ted C]

We do see one TNG-era low-yield phaser pistol, albeit a nonfunctional one, being held by a Federation civilian. That would be in The Survivors. Sure, the weapon, like the entire small estate, was a Douwd simulation, but one that passed unremarked by Worf and Picard. They accepted the weapon as genuine and apparently not out of place for a colonist to have.

Did you not recognize the prop? That's a TOS-vintage hand phaser from "The Cage". The Douwd was threatening them with an antique.

[Ted C]

Even with no sights, one can sight along the top of the unit.

One can, but not very well. Accuracy will suck; a modern pistol with simple iron sights would be far more accurate at anything over hip-shooting range.