Scopes

[Bren]

Both blaster and laser cannon fire has a special effect (SFX) that looks like a colored bolt of energy or light traveling from weapon towards the target. The bolts don't appear different on screen nor is it clear from the WEG stats for blaster cannons and laser cannons that the two types of weapon are intended to be significantly different.

In addition, I am unconvinced that the SFX that we see in the films should be taken too literally. If we were to do so, we would then have to presume space in Star Wars is some sort of etheric material that efficiently conducts sound.

I also note that this type of weapon SFX is similar to what we see in other shows like Star Trek (though the weapons tend to have longer bolts and sometimes even beams), OS Battlestar Galactica, and Babylon 5. I suggest that we see blasters and laser cannons firing a bolt of light because that makes it easier for the audience to judge the volume and direction of fire and it makes the battle scenes more dramatic or intense.

Logically, if both firearms and blasters exist in the SWU, there must be a rationale for why blasters are nearly universally used and preferred over firearms. Weapons generally supercede other weapons for one or more of the following reasons:
(1) Learning curve - one reason muskets replaced longbows in England was that muskets were quicker and easier to learn to use than a full-size longbow.
(2) Price - weapon and ammo.
(3) Range.
(4) Accuracy.
(5) Damage - including armor penetration.
(6) Ammo capacity.

According to the WEG stats.
(1) Equal
(2) Firearm weapon is about 1/2 the price or less of a blaster, blaster ammo is cheaper about 1/5 the price of firearm ammo.
(3) Range - varies, the effective range seems to be longer for blaster pistols and shorter for blaster rifles.
(4) Equal
(5) Blasters are superior by +1D damage vs unarmored targets; armor almost always provides additional protection against firearms; some special firearm ammo will mitigate the difference a bit.
(6) Blasters are superior. Only caseless low calibar/high velocity firearms have similar ammo capacity to blasters.

According to the RAW, blasters are generally equal or roughly equivalent to firearms on (1) - (4) and are superior on (5) and (6).

[garhkal]

True, but it is cause that i have my hiracy of why firearms are better..

1) cause they suck against armors, most imperial worlds don't look to clamp down so easy.
2) cause they are less usable in many people's eyes, they should be cheeper to get
and #3... THEY CAN BE SILENCED!
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!

[Esoomian]

Doesn't a silencer only reduce the sound/muzzle flash of the projectile leaving the barrel?

I'm not sure that it actually stops or reduces the sound of the explosion that launches the projectile.
_________________
Don't waste money on expensive binoculars.

Simply stand closer to the object you wish to view.

[Bren]

Are you pricing firearms below the WEG RAW prices?

Real cost will likely be driven more by manufacturing cost and regulation than by low demand. Where regulation is high, availability will be low, so cost will be high. Low demand will be balanced by higher manufacturing costs due to minimal production runs. So I don't think low demand would drive cost down much at all.

I don't see why Imperial worlds wouldn't clamp down on firearms. They do about the same damage as sporting blasters. And preventing import is pretty easy. You can scan for firearms with simple x-ray and metal detectors and scanning for ammo is easy since the chemical propellant will be readily detectable. IIR weapon scanners like those in the corporate sector already detect explosive and firearms.

I know the Spec Forces sourcebook talks about silencing firearms, but I don't really see any reason you couldn't silence a blaster. The same sort of sound baffles should work. The one clear advantage firearms have is that unlike a blaster bolt, a bullet is pretty near invisible in flight. Tracking back to the source of the shot is much easier for a blaster weapon than for a firearm, especially at night.

[CRMcNeill]

[Esoomian]

Ah, thanks for that. However in the quick Google search I did it seems that the more powerful the firearm the less effective a silencer is. For supersonic projectiles it seems a silencer helps the firer not to suffer any hearing loss but does not prevent the shot from being clearly audible.

Also the silencer does nothing to prevent the sound of the projectile travelling through the air so while it can help prevent a firers location from being easily identified I don't think it would be a sure fire way to prevent the fact that someone was shooting from being detected.
_________________
Don't waste money on expensive binoculars.

Simply stand closer to the object you wish to view.

[jmanski]

Indeed. Silencer is not the appropriate term- suppressor is. A suppressor "quiets" the shot but does not make it "silent" (but it does help hide the muzzle flash).

Personally I've always disliked the argument that you can silence a firearm but not a blaster. I see it a different way. I think you can silence a blaster but only suppress a firearm.
_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect?

[CRMcNeill]

[Fallon Kell]

[atgxtg]

[atgxtg]

[jmanski]

[Bren]

[Fallon Kell]

[Bren]