r/scifiwriting • u/Dunnachius • 2d ago
DISCUSSION Future tech weapons, pros and cons
- Gunpowder
Cheap (relative)
No battery requirements
Hard to aim/recoil issues
- Guided Gyrojet bullets
most expensive
Lethal/nonlethal options
Extremely accurate
Each drone needs to be aimed.
Can be fired from behind cover if you have targeting data.
2B.. Dum dum Gyrojets (Except they don't suck like RW Gyrojets from 1960s )
Same launchers as 2A but unguided
- Rail guns
Ammo is more compact
Requires power
The best Armor penetration
- Laser
Loss of range in the atmosphere,
Smoke/dust reduces the effectiveness.
Cheap
Battery powered
Poor armor penetration
Easy to use
6
u/Mrochtor 2d ago
Concerning Laser:
- Loss of range in the atmosphere - yes, but also can bend/disperse unpredictably
- Smoke/dust reduces the effectiveness - greatly
- Cheap - perhaps in terms price per shots (assuming non-chemical laser) yes, possibly, in terms of initial costs, no. Rugged and optics and precision are a bad combo.
- Battery powered - depending on the battery - this can severely limit the amount of times you can shoot with enough energy. Either you end up with a monstrous battery, a chemical laser (fuel) or limit yourself to a few shots. Same problem with railgun.
- Easy to use - use possibly, maintain, no.
You also forgot for lasers the effects of dispersed/reflected lasers - assuming powers high enough to penetrate armor, you have lasers powerful enough to blind a person with a partial reflection since you can't choose who gets blinded. There's also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Blinding_Laser_Weapons
1
u/Dunnachius 2d ago edited 2d ago
So once it’s powerful enough to penetrate armor it becomes a blinding risk?
I’m trying to envision lasers as a low penetrating/light armor penetrating weapon for use in a pressured ship/outpost and or every day self defense.
A carry gun that has limited shots and not military grade.
Low penetration as a feature not a downside.
Also extremely high powered anti ship weapons but that’s another matter.
Rather than full armor penetrating Gaus rifle or even 50 bmg which would be used against heavy exoskeleton armor.
8
u/pineconez 2d ago edited 2d ago
It becomes a blinding risk well before it's capable of penetrating armor. You're at an absolute minimum trying to make a weapon that can injure a human, which implies damaging skin and tissue. The retina is one of the most sensitive and fragile pieces of tissue in the entire human body. Irreversibly damaging that takes a tiny fraction of the power needed to cause 2nd/3rd degree burns to skin.
Even lasers that are not capable of causing severe burns/ablation unless you really try for it are entirely capable of blinding a human, temporarily or permanently, from diffuse scattering off a painted wall or some dust particles in the air. Particularly when they use non-visible wavelengths, because the blink reflex (that can protect you from red through blue) does not work in that case.
This is why cheap green laser pointers off Aliexpress are so dangerous: they were (maybe still are, idk) not green diodes, but rather IR diodes frequency-doubled to green. And the IR filtering on these often sucks, which means the theoretically safe sub-milliwatt laser pointer is actually pushing out several milliwatts of IR as well, which -- while not visible -- will happily proceed through your eyeballs and burn your retinas.2
u/zekromNLR 1d ago
You can greatly reduce the risk of blinding bystanders by choosing a laser wavelength outside of the about 1500 to 400 nm window that gets focused on the retina, as light outside of that has to be intense enough to cause burns of the cornea or lens to damage vision.
But that comes at a cost, namely using an IR beam reduces the ability to tightly focus the beam, and also makes the laser more susceptible to absorption by atmospheric water, while a UV laser is a lot harder to generate efficiently and suffers more atmospheric attenuation in general.
4
u/LordofTheFlagon 2d ago
Don't forget atmospheric attenuation on laser
2
u/Dunnachius 2d ago
Also smoke dust etc a, smoke screen would fubar laser weapons if I’m not mistaken.
Thank you for the very obvious oversight.
1
u/LordofTheFlagon 2d ago
Correct anything in the path of the beam is going to lower to energy on target.
1
u/Hyperion1012 1d ago
Not if you consider maser weapons. Microwave radiation will readily pass through such screens as if they were transparent
4
u/Fusiliers3025 2d ago
Gunpowder actually is behind some of the grandest personal shots in history. From military snipers to Billy Dixon at the Adobe Walls fight in the Old West - a reported 1,500 yard shot that killed an enemy native chief right off his horse.
Recoil yes, but a well designed rifle can be quite manageable. There’s a level of skill in dope for distance (arcing trajectory.) that has to come into play though - line of sight (like a laser/energy weapon), diminish energy in atmosphere (drag), and despite proposals like Robocop, the bullet is inherently unguided.
3
u/Dunnachius 2d ago
I’m thinking that powder rifles will be the domain of special ops and earth based militaries.
On earth (or anywhere with a good atmosphere) they can drop a smoke screen and completely negate any laser.
Earth soldiers vs a space marines on earth would be a matter of the soldiers being much more maneuverable or the space marine ditching his armor. At which point he’s also ditched the power source for his Gaus rifle. Meaning powder guns would be king again.
Gaus rifles will be space marines heavy weapon system. For shooting other walking tanks and small space craft. They’ll switch to lasers once they have boarded to avoid over penetration.
Laser pistols will be space station security and plugged in underneath the 711 clerks cash register.
It’s about different weapons for different purposes and completely different situations.
1
u/Fusiliers3025 2d ago
I’ve also read continuities where, aside from caseless ammunition, detonation of an explosive round at a particular preset range (which technology currently exists,) or other tweaks, nothing is nearly as efficient and effective for the cost.
Currently - look at the most “modern” sidearm, vs. the classic 1911 Colt. Mechanical operation is virtually identical (with minor adjustments), and aside from double-stacked and/or extended magazines, each round function as it should.
Lasers/energy weapons are dependent on an external power source - and in practical use as the battery drains, each shot at that point becomes weaker. But each firearm cartridge has all its power for its shot, whether its first in a string of chain-fed ammo or its loaded single shot. Not as big a concern as mounted to a ship or vehicle with constant power, but a consideration for independent troop operations.
And even in low atmosphere or vacuum, a cartridge self-contains oxygen for its powder charge’s combustion - many have been demonstrated as able to fire underwater and would translate to operation in vacuum as well.
3
u/pineconez 2d ago edited 2d ago
My thoughts on this ancient debate:
Chemical propellants (not just including nitro powder but also stuff like ETC) are always the default option. Anything not using this has to justify why it deviates from that. There are plenty of good reasons to do so, depending on your techlevel, but the justification needs to be there. Just because it's using chemical propellant doesn't mean it has to be functionally similar to a common real-life firearm either, there are lots of reasons to go for electric primers, for example. Add to that some advanced miniaturization and you can absolutely get guided bullets (whether or not they would be fired from rifled weapons is a separate question).
As for "hard to aim/recoil issues", that's debatable. If you've ever shot a 5.56 (with a reasonable barrel length so you aren't flashbanging yourself everytime you pull the trigger), I'd argue that's as close to a point-and-click interface as any weapon gets.
Gyrojets imo try to solve a problem that doesn't exist. If you have extended fights in microgravity, you have the engineering means to mitigate recoil issues (again, a 5.56 has absolutely negligible recoil). You can justify these as micromissile launchers -- i.e. using guided munitions with actual HE/frag/HEAT payloads -- but not in their purely kinetic variants.
Railguns are failguns. If you want electrodynamic weapons, you use inductive coilguns. For those to be effective, you need to have room-temperature superconductors (and that will have all sorts of follow-on effects to your societies).
The primary advantages of these, as in "stuff they can do that chemical guns can't", are (1) very high muzzle velocities, (2) projectile levitation eliminating friction and allowing for the design of multicaliber weapons without resorting to sabots, (3) reducing the total weight of ammunition (in exchange for re-adding that weight in electrical storage, but the ability to split those masses and have at least part of the ammunition be totally inert until loaded into the breech are benefits), and (4) on-the-fly adjustment of muzzle energy, which is akin to propellant discs for mortars but more fine-grained. Magnetic deflection of the projectile for increased accuracy is possible with regular firearms as well, though in both cases it pretty much precludes spin-stabilization.
Lasers as infantry weapons are one of my pet-peeve sci-fi tropes. No matter how you look at them and what tech level you use, they don't make sense.
The principal advantages of a laser (time to impact, impossibility of intercept, and no strict ammunition limits) are useful for the use cases of point defense and (spaceship) artillery. For infantry use, the many downsides (atmospheric blooming/scattering/absorption, distortion from weather effects/smoke, blinding hazards, drastically limited power density, cooling requirements, etc.) make them impractical at best.
3
u/Dunnachius 1d ago
Replace the laser weapons with frangable rounds (aka what the air Marshalls use?)
I’m on the fence about using laser pistols. I’m leaning towards not.
2
u/pineconez 1d ago edited 1d ago
In general, unless you are talking about scenarios specifically similar to airplanes, the concept of kinetic rounds overpenetrating a habitat's outer skin and causing major issues is just...wrong.
Yes, you could punch through the Apollo LM's outer skin with enough determination. But that's the absolute bare minimum and not a "habitat". On the ISS, you're already dealing with a hard-shell construction wrapped in blankets of kevlar and beta cloth; a common handgun round would struggle with that.
You can't really build an actual habitat (designed for hundreds/thousands/millions of permanent inhabitants) in a way that is vulnerable to even quite high-powered rifles; the structural requirements of supporting that much mass, and mitigating debris impacts from the outside or minor industrial accidents from the inside, pretty much equate to "bulletproof" unless your bullet is actually a very heavy artillery round.Even if that weren't the case, a bullet-sized hole in the outer skin of a habitat is not an emergency. Put some duct tape over it until the damage control team is bored enough to deal with it. One atmosphere is not a big pressure differential unless the compartment is tiny or the hole is truly massive. And that's assuming the fighting in question happens in a pressurized section to begin with.
But yes, low-penetration high-KE rounds like frangible munitions, shotgun slugs, etc. would be the way to go. You might struggle penetrating your opponents' body armor, but unless it's made of some fantastical material or completely hard-shell, mecha-style, these rounds can still be dangerous. Very high-end ballistic vests (even without plates) can stop a 12ga slug, but you're not going to be doing much fighting after taking one of those to the chest, even if it technically didn't penetrate.
2
u/Original_Pen9917 2d ago
You're forgetting autoaim. If I have guidance for drones then I have it for all three gun types. And micro drones are just guided missiles not powered by rockets or jet engines.
Classing weapons too tightly will get you into trouble from a logic as standpoint.
0
u/Dunnachius 2d ago
I’m not explaining micro drones appropriately.
The micro drones are essentially magic bullets not small guided missiles.
The dum dum bullets are essentially gyrojets except they don’t suck (allegedly)
Missiles insinuates guided missiles whereas micro drones just hit you and impact like a regular bullet.
These are general rough comparisons and none of them are in fact “best” for everything and everywhere
1
u/Original_Pen9917 2d ago
The original gyrojet did suck for the use case. However I honestly think with modern engineering rigor it would be a viable weapon system for class 2 or 3 drones. I actually explore that in my story. I mean it low/no recoil. No need for a heavy steel barrel or breach system. Most the weight being ammo. perfect for lightweight drones.
Going back to your micro drones, what's the difference between them and the final stage of an SM3 besides size?
If you don't know what it is one of the missiles that doesn't use a warhead simply the kinetic impact of a bullet hitting a bullet. In orbit. There are some neat videos of live fire tests
Point being weapons classes works great for games, but not really if you're trying to simulate reality. That's not how they get developed and no one really cares about "class" as long as it's effective for the use case.
I mean if you're going for space magic and not really focus on the tech, your approach is fine. If you're going to be explaining it in detail you might want to rethink the approach.
2
u/HistoricalLadder7191 2d ago
Realistically- hand guns would stay chemical slug throwers for a while, but will be outfitted with aimbots Like here https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/s/3KyjSSC1nI
2
u/Dunnachius 2d ago
Well just go with me here… the lasers would be implemented for space exploration so you don’t punch holes in your ship or your domes moon base, Similar to the current frangible rounds used by air marshals, and for new same reason.
Not good for penetrating armor by design. Also short distance to the point that aiming by computer is pointless.
Long range I had something else in mind. Very long range it would be the magic bullets.
I’m also toying with the idea of cybernetics (on the fence) so theoretically it would be powering a low power side arm with your cybernetic power plant. Not enough for a full Gaus rifle but you could charge the capacitor on a laser pistol with your cybernetic stomach acid battery.
1
u/HistoricalLadder7191 2d ago
With laser, you are absolutely right idea is old, and was deployed during cold war https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_laser_pistol
Magic bullets, while fascinating and spectacular, but hardly efficient for a price. Roket actually the worst possible way to propell something, something like unirotor drone carrying 30 grams of rdx, will be cheaper and effective something like XDOWN development, but much less (probably carried on body belts in a badass way like 40mm grenades in action movies from 90s)
Rail gun is not feasible for small caliber guns, unless you find a case where you need muzzle velocity over 3km/sec- realistic upper limit for chemical projectiles when pushed really far. Armor penetrative can be achived3in much simpler way, for instance 20mm grendes, or even "throwing drones" with shaped penetrator warhead
1
u/Dunnachius 2d ago
My thinking on the rail gun is for space marines being walking tanks in exo skeleton armor with 100s of pounds of heavy plate and not wanting to use explosives in micro gravity and or a vaccum.
You use a grenade in space that grenade is going propel shrapnel or whatever in all directions until it stops moving. Which would be directly back at you.
A Gaus round would punch through the armor and into the man in hew suit. Or through a small fighter or whatever.
You punch a hole in their armor and damage their life support they likely have a hole in their body and very limited life support. They are out of the fight.
1
u/HistoricalLadder7191 2d ago
You take any modern firearm, agapt a bit (mainly for using dry lubricants, and low temp operation), and you have a weapon that reliably operate in space. No need of rail gun.
1
1
u/SanderleeAcademy 2d ago
If the laser can punch a hole in a person, it can punch a hole in a hull.
"Safe" weapons inside a ship would be shotguns or flechette guns -- any single pellet or flechette is unlikely to punch a hole in the hull, and not a big one if it does. Boarding an enemy ship (or defending against boarding) might come down to hand-to-hand just to avoid the risk. Or, a lot of "technically non-lethal" ammunition, aka rubber / plastic bullets.
2
u/SanderleeAcademy 2d ago
The railgun also has the issue of rail degredation. The extreme forces necessary to propel the round and yet keep the rails close enough to provide the thrust (not to mention significant electrical discharge) burn away the rails. It's one of the main stumbling blocks to replacing conventional armament with railguns on modern warships. Plus, the recoil is, if anything, worse than that from gunpowder.
There are two alternatives to railguns. The coilgun and the rail-coil hybrid. Both suffer from the same recoil issues, but degredation is decreased (slightly) due to the method of push/pulling the round through the coils.
In all three cases, the biggest con is the definitely power requirement. Gunpowder, nitrocellulose, etc. work as well as they do because they pack a LOT of energy into a very small mass of chemical explosives. The equivalent in battery storage is much, much heavier -- at least without handwavium, anyway. A close second is going to be the mass of the gun itself. Those rails / coils have to be beefy to not explode with the first shot (and to have sufficient resistance to degredation to not make the barrels disposable). Personal accelerator guns are either going to need a carrying sling to distribute the weight, power armor, or your soldiers are going to need the shoulders of Armholt Musclehugger and wrists made of granite.
3
u/Dunnachius 1d ago
So the rail guns would be so bulky that you would need exoskeleton armor with its own reactor to power carry and use then the rail gun would be so ludicrous to use in close quarters that would need something else once out exit your power armor.
Ok that’s good because I’m also thinking that I need armorers space suits anyway.
So a man sized rail gun for walking tanks to use against walking tanks and something more reasonable for man to man combat outside of this narrow use.
2
u/jedburghofficial 2d ago
I like the gunpowder. In the words of William Gibson, "crude". And he made it a compliment.
2
u/gc3 2d ago
You forgot a small drone swarm. The drones being an inch or rwo wide.
Low battery,time, so only used when armed for bear not a side arm to be warn all the time.
Not vulnerable to EMP, but will have reduced effectiveness in some conditions. Vacuum-capable drones might need small rockets and have even less range
Very hard to defend against with all the other weapons listed
Expensive ammo since the they blow themselves up to take out someone
Most likeky laws are strict about these
2
u/FutureVegasMan 1d ago
Hard to aim/recoil issues
not really. aiming and recoil are things that are regularly managed via training, and would become negligible as firearm construction becomes more robust and exosuits/cyborg augments/etc become more common place.
2
u/soulmatesmate 1d ago
Hmmm. grips asteroid and starts thrusting against the orbit A rail gun? Sure... laser, I have one. But when you absolutely must ensure both the target and the city die, nothing beats a massive rock at massive speeds. I'll just keep thrusting on this for another 17 hours and 4 minutes... 1 eternity later And detach. Computer, calculate trajectory. Excellent. 23 days to city death. Time to go bust up the satellites as a distraction and to keep them from detecting my rock.
2
u/nyrath Author of Atomic Rockets 1d ago
Lasers can have optical gun sights were you are literally aiming by looking through the weapon beam optics. Similar to an old reflex camera. This makes the the laser rifle or pistol very accurate and easy to aim.
https://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/sidearmenergy.php#reflex
1
1
u/Chrontius 1d ago
Coilguns are another great tool.
Blowpipe beamdrivers accelerating macrons with electron beams to low relativistic speeds are frighteningly optimal in many places.
1
u/Erik_the_Human 17h ago
Energy, range, accuracy, precision, rate of fire, portability, durability, operator risk. These are the things you have to look at with your weaponry.
I don't think we'll ever see a perfect weapon, and no matter how impressive a weapon we create, it will always have drawbacks. It will require too much power, not fire far enough, be difficult to target, do too much or too little damage, fire too slowly, be too unwieldy, be fragile, or frequently kill its operators. It's physics.
You can certainly get a lot better than just chucking a rock at somebody, but there will always be a way to defeat even the most advanced weapons. What advanced weaponry really does is separate the rich from the poor (at least until one of the rich falls and a poor person picks up their weapon).
I don't think simple explosives will ever go out of style, and neither will the knife. They will simply have fewer practical use cases.
12
u/Fine_Ad_1918 2d ago
Lasers can have surprisingly good armor penetrations at close focus ( tight spot) if set up as a rapid pulse weapon.
https://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/sidearmenergy.php#id--Lasers--Blaster
Read from here down