Guns in the 'Verse by outlawtexan

All very valid points. I never gave it alot of thought, really. As for spot-the-prop, did you notice that the part that Wash hurled at the ambulance in "Ariel" was the same part that broke in "Out of Gas"? If he is just throwing it around like a discus, then I guess they really are a nothing part...until you don't have one.

Viva Firefly!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2003 12:10 AM

DRAKON

Grrr!!! have not been able to connect to this site for quite some time. Don't know why.

I think you are on to something, concerning firearms. The biggest reasons why cartitridge arms would be cheaper is a matter of technology. Its simpler and lower tech. (Although I have my doubts about Mal's pistol. No cylinder for one thing and a strange pneumatic sound when he cocks it.)

And with lower tech, you get the added advantage of easy to repair/restock. Especially in a wild country far from civilization. Today there are folks who load their own cartridges with relatively cheap and easily obtained equipment. Gunpowder is a simple thing to make, (charcoal, salt peter and sulpher ?) and lead easy to cast into bullets.

In general, it is my understanding that revolvers are more accurate because they kick less. The automatic firearm uses the gas from the cartridge to reload the next one. While in a revolver, all that gas gets vented out the cylinder, sideways as well as back. Less recoil makes the weapon more accurate, especially on shots after the first one.

Saw a documentary on the History channel on the future of firearms, and showed a couple of new innovations. One was a bullet that would go through steel, yet self destruct in soft tissue. Supposedly its all done with metalurgy, but was pretty impressive. (And not a bad idea for defeating body armor. A lot of armor penetrating bullets, (as I understand it) will simply go right through soft tissue, hitting anyone behind the target as well.

The other really cool innovation they showed was a kind of electronic gun. It used caseless ammo, and loaded a series of bullets (with charges) into a barrel. Through some electronics, it exploded the charge behind the first bullet, then the second, ect. till the barrel was empty.

Mechanical firearms are limited to about 6,000 rounds a minute. This electrically fired, stacked, caseless cartridge kind of gun can spit its entire load out at a rate of 1 million rounds a minute. Or a single shot, if you so desire. Great for one opponent or a few thousand.

"my kind of stupid"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2003 6:32 AM

From practical experiance, revolvers tend to have more kick than an automatic of the same caliber. Part of this is due to the fact that most automatics use ammunition with smaller caseings and thus lighter powder loads. Also, automatics use the recoil of a shot fired to move mechanical to chamber the next round, thus redirecting some of the recoil energy away from the grip.

The design of the pistol(s) in question will also have a great effect on the amount of recoil absorbed by the person fireing. For example, a hold-out pistol or snub-nosed revolver is usually not as well balanced in weight or center of momentum than a 'full-sized' pistol of equivalent caliber. This often gives the smaller weapons more kick than their larger brethern.

As to the greater use of revolvers in FF, my favor would lie with the idea that they are simpler (ergo, cheaper) to manufacture and maintain than automatics. People use what they can find and afford.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2003 7:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:

Gunpowder is a simple thing to make, (charcoal, salt peter and sulpher ?) and lead easy to cast into bullets.

"my kind of stupid"

It was my understanding that, during the American Civil War, southern troops in Ordinance used to boil niter (salt peter) in urine that was collected from southern ladies to add the chemicals needed to make it gunpowder. I know that was an important step. There used to be a ribald nineteenth century poem about which had the greater effect on the soldier's libido, the smell of salt peter, which is supposed to curb one's sexual appetite, or the smell of his sweatheart when she pees. (Yeah, I know it's gross, but I didn't write the poem.)

And, yes, they added charcoal and sulfer to the mix. The sulfer is what gives black powder the rotten egg smell when it ignites (if you've ever smelled the smoke of a musket.)

Viva Firefly!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2003 9:00 AM

WHOODAHN

Quote:

It was my understanding that, during the American Civil War, southern troops in Ordinance used to boil niter (salt peter) in urine that was collected from southern ladies to add the chemicals needed to make it gunpowder. I know that was an important step. There used to be a ribald nineteenth century poem about which had the greater effect on the soldier's libido, the smell of salt peter, which is supposed to curb one's sexual appetite, or the smell of his sweatheart when she pees. (Yeah, I know it's gross, but I didn't write the poem.)

You mean this one?

"John Harralson! John Harralson! We've read in song and story How women's tears through all the years have moistened fields of glory, But never was it told before amid such scenes of slaughter, Your southern belles dried their tears and went to making water.

No wonder that your boys are brave, who wouldn't be a fighter, If every time, he fired his gun, he used his sweetheart's nitre: And vica versa, what would make a yankee soldier madder, Than dodging bullets fired from a pretty woman's bladder?

They say there was a subtle smell that lingered in the powder, And as the smoke grew thicker and the din of battle louder, There was found to this compound one serious objection, No soldier boy did sniff the stuff without having an erection!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2003 9:22 AM

THAT'S THE ONE! Where the hell did you find that?! It looks like I was a little off about what the poem was about, but it's all there. Boy, that brings back a memory or two. Good ole ribald nineteenth century poetry!

Viva Firefly!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2003 9:41 AM

p.s. Good show with pin pointing such an obscure reference! Wasn't there a yankee parody of this poem that was written in the form of a reply? I thought so, but it's been so long since I read them that I could hardly remember the original poem.

Viva Firefly!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2003 10:54 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Well, thanks guys, you've just made my whole gorram day - I needed a rid crackin laugh or two, and that sure provided it!

I wasn't my gorram DVDs!!..

-frem
diefuxdie

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2003 10:54 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Well, thanks guys, you've just made my whole gorram day - I needed a rid crackin laugh or two, and that sure provided it!

I want my gorram DVDs!!..

-frem
diefuxdie

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2003 11:01 AM

WHOODAHN

Quote:
Originally posted by JOHNNYREB:
THAT'S THE ONE! Where the hell did you find that?! It looks like I was a little off about what the poem was about, but it's all there. Boy, that brings back a memory or two. Good ole ribald nineteenth century poetry!

I love the Internet. I did a search for a couple of key words and stumbled across a reference to the poem.

You learn something new each day if you aren't careful.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 20, 2003 8:57 PM

Another reason for using the simpler firearms shown in FF: Less maintenance.

While it is a good idea to clean your firearms often, it is not as critical with the simpler revolvers, pump shotguns, and lever action rifles. Automatics, however, are more sensitive. Grit and abrasive residue in the action must be removed, otherwise the firearm will jam. Jamming during a firefight is BAD news, rendering those extra bullets in the clip quite useless til the jam is cleared. While dirt and grime are bad for any weapon, the simpler the weapon (ie pump action, revolver), the less likely it is the weapon will fail on you due to the environment.

How big a room?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 21, 2003 3:11 AM

OUTLAWTEXAN

I agree, revolvers are more "robust" than autos, in that they require less maintenance. This is with modern powder, though. As was mentioned earlier, one can cook up their own black powder, but this stuff is incredibly caustic, and if you don't clean your gun EVERY TIME YOU FIRE IT, you will soon be unarmed.

Now, while it's important to clean a gun every time you shoot it, if you don't do it with black powder, it will literally eat your gun up.

Also, they can't be using black powder. There just isn't enough smoke. During the Civil War -- or, more accurately, the War of Northern Aggression to a good ol' Southern Boy like myself ;-) -- a few dozen shots provides a very thick smokescreen. Even a single shot means you have to wait a moment or two to find out if you even hit the target.

Also, reloading a brass cartridge with black powder doesn't give the same power to the bullet. Powder, like Pyrodex or the sort, is pretty cheap now, so there's no reason not to think it's fairly cheap and available in the 'Verse.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 21, 2003 3:29 AM

I always thought that the 1911 A-1 was built for stopping power and use while it was uncleaned and filthy. It was a trench weapon. (You know, the old WWI /WWII .45 pistol?) Isn't it true that this automatic pistol didn't fire worth a tinker's damn when it was clean and gained more accuracy as the residue and grime built up? I could be wrong; I've never fired one. But that is just what I heard.

I'm not saying that it is more or less sensitive than a revolver. But I was always led to believe that it performed it's best in the trenches for just that reason.

Viva Firefly!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 22, 2003 3:13 AM

And one further thing of note.

I noticed the revolvers in FF have very small caliber bullets, notice the pistol when Mal is pointing it at folks. Now, while a smaller caliber is just as good at killing like any other supersonic piece of metal flying through the air, larger calibers have more knockdown power and armor penetration ability. But when used, Mal's gun typically picks the target up and puts it on the ground. For me this says "hyper-velocity ammunition." Hyper-velocity (HV) rounds don't just travel supersonic (faster than 1x speed of sound), but hypersonic (3x+ speed of sound). This puts ALOT more kinetic energy into the round, and if designed to mushroom (tip expands or "mushrooms" into a larger cross section) or fragment (bunch of pieces) will deliver large amounts of kinetic energy into the target.

Quickie recap for those non-science ppl out there: kinetic energy= mass of object X square of objects speed (M*V^2). Of course, you can get more complex equations detailing just about everything about the energy of the object, but this simplified equation tells the tale.

HV ammo is a lot more expensive than standard, but would be of a smaller caliber and thus would allow more bullets to be in the revolver. A possible explanation for the number of shells I spotted in Mal's gun.

Course I could be completely mistaken, as it has been a while since I've seen FF at all. I would like for others to comment on Mal's gun. The episode I remember where it is clearly shown is the ep where Mal gets hitched.

Just my thoughts. Am I way off base or not?

Jayne: "How big a room?"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 22, 2003 3:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by outlawtexan:
During the Civil War -- or, more accurately, the War of Northern Aggression to a good ol' Southern Boy like myself ;-)

Havta agree there OUTLAWTEXAN. 'Course, history is written by the victors.

Before anyone gets snippy, please examine the location of Civil War battlefields in the US. With the exception of two battles (one in Gettysburg, the other I don't recall the name of, blast), all combat took place in Southern states, including the famous "March to the Sea" by a certain Northern General (Sheridan).

The south was invaded by the north, and more than a century later, folks are still touchy about the subject (both sides). Talk about pivital point in history.

Jayne: "How big a room?"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 22, 2003 7:54 AM

The two battles were Gettysburg (July 1-3, 1863) and Sharpsburg/Antietam (September 12, 1862). There was also a little skirmish in St. Albans, VT. Confederates crossed the Canadian border and told the town that it was now Confederate occupied. Everyone laughed because no one could imagine the Confederate army in Vermont. So the Rebels salvaged their dignity, robbed the bank, and escaped north into Canada. For the most part though, the yankees WERE the aggressors.

Viva Firefly!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 22, 2003 7:55 AM

p.s. Sherman marched to he sea. Sheridan ravaged the Shenandoah Valley in '64.

Viva Firefly!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 22, 2003 11:03 AM

BLACKSTAR

Upon close inspection of Mal's pistol in the opening of Heart of Gold, Mal's pistol seems toe of a decent size caliber, possibly .44, or more likely .45 being as this is a Western. The .45 slug had more than enough knock down power, and is old and reliable. I think Mal's sidearm does raise some interesting questions, though. I doesn't seem to be a revolver, for there is no rotating cylinder, but it doesn't seem to be a semi-auto either. I think possibly it uses some form of caseless ammunition, or otherwise it uses technology way off base from modern firearms. Most other weapons used are obviously modern day weapons adapted to look futuristic(or not) but obviously Mal's was a custom build. I wonder if there is a Firely propmaster out there who could post and reveal some of it's secrets... I was thinking about the sci-fi sound that the FF guns made, possibly they use some sort of magnetic firing technology, rail guns and the like, though
that wouldn't expalain why the guns still had cased ammunition...

P.S. Can anyone identify the carbine used by Book in War Stories? I can't seem to place it. Thanks!

Oh, my GOD! Who's flying this thing! Oh, right, that would be me...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 22, 2003 1:18 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

In reference to 1911 model .45s:

I know from experience that the 1911 model .45 and its close copies fire better once they have been broken in. This is not a matter of grime build up, but rather the smoothing out of components with a little wear.

There is a big industry involved in the transformation of the 1911 .45 into a superb sidearm. People pour hundreds or thousands of dollars into the weapons, and take them to competition. Even the most basic modifications to the gun involve replacing springs, adjusting tolerances, and smoothing out various parts to make the weapon more reliable and able to eat various makes of ammunition.

The fact that this industry exists suggests that the 1911 .45 is a good gun that could use some simple improvements, even right out of the box.

A revolver is typically harder to jam or gum up than a semiauto. It CAN happen (don't let anyone tell you revolvers are foolproof or jam-proof. Anything with moving parts can be broken.)

Without feed ramps and recoil springs and magazines and reciprocating slides... revolvers are MUCH simpler, usually have fewer moving parts, and are easier to maintain. They are also much more accepting of wide varieties of ammunition. (Case in point: My Makarov pistol wouldn't reliably feed some types of hollowpoint ammunition until I had it 'tuned' by a gunsmith.)

Also, it's important to remember some context. When the independants were fighting in the war, we saw assault rifles being used. I don't recall lever action rifles and revolvers in the war scenes.

It's later, when Mal and company are world hopping during peacetime, that we see REALLY old style guns. Why? Because they aren't fighting extensive engagements where hundreds and thousands of rounds are exchanged. They are fighting small engagements between handfuls of people.

Chances are, you don't need more than six bullets most times. Chances are, the fight has been won or lost before you've fired your third bullet. IF the fight isn't over in ten seconds or less, it's because someone has cover. And if you have cover, you have the opportunity to reload.

So, since capacity isn't as much of an issue in a small, short duration gunfight, reliability and simplicity takes precedence. Thus, revolvers become okay.

My take on things,

--Anthony

"If a fight lasts longer than a few seconds, then the fighters are either VERY good or VERY bad."

--Alexander Aguinaga

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 23, 2003 6:57 AM

GYAHH! Now I feel dumb, they named a tank after him and everything.

Coulda sworn it was Sheridan tho...

Anyway, the pistol I'm referring to is the one Mal points at the bandits while dressed as a woman. The cylinder seemed to have alot more than 6 shells in it, implying a smaller caliber. Since I don't have the episode in front of me and can only go on memory, I'll have to take y'alls word for it.

MUST GET DVD'S!!!

PS. Your right about the small engagements, bullet festivals need to be reserved for military types. If you're a "private employer" like Mal, large dustups draw too much attention. Spraying autofire into a crowd makes too many ppl nervous, for many reasons.

Jayne: "How big a room?"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 23, 2003 7:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JOHNNYREB:
I always thought that the 1911 A-1 was built for stopping power and use while it was uncleaned and filthy. It was a trench weapon. (

I can say from experiance that the 1911A1 will fire while filled with sand and grime in places it has no right to be in, but I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say it fires _better_ under those conditions.

I would also like to make note that while the crew of Serenity do seem to favor revolvers for most of the series, they do have quite a few automatics as well. In Out of Gas, Mal uses one hidden in the cargo bay. Also in War Stories, The entire crew is loaded-up with automatics.

I think while all of the arguments in favor of the reliability of revolvers are totally valid, it may be that the reason for seeing more of them on FF may be simply a matter of preferance on the part of those who carry them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 23, 2003 7:54 AM

As for Mals sidearm... My fellow browncoats here locally and I have spent a while looking over that gun and still have no idea how it operates. It doesn't look like any weapon that I or anybody I know has ever seen. (Kudos to the props department!)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 23, 2003 10:52 AM

RAW53X

the major reason for tradishonal firearms used in the series is in kepping with the look of the show.

but for a practical reason to use firearms over lazer guns and other weapons. are simple. wepon surviability. think about it you drop a Glock on the floor. when you pick it up it will still works. lasers would brake easey droping them would damage the electronics and lenses inside.

and then when it comes to repairing lasers. espeshley in the field.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 23, 2003 5:07 PM

VETERAN

Don't squat with your spurs on.

You guys are overlooking an important possibility: Gun Control. It is likely, that after the war, the Alliance outlawed many more favorable weapons. Maybe that's why you don't see too many assault rifles.

I don't know a whole lot about fire arms, but, regarding someone's comment about automatics not being able to take a lot of abuse, I'd point out that it depends on the make. I've heard that the AK-47 is well known for it's ability to fire even after being buried.

And for those who insist on calling the Civil War the War of Northern Agression, I point out that Fort Sumter was fired upon by southern forces....

Can't spend too much time on this right now, Hondo's on, so here's a link:

http://www.electricscotland.com/history/america/civilwar/cw26.htm

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 23, 2003 5:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Veteran:

And for those who insist on calling the Civil War the War of Northern Agression, I point out that Fort Sumter was fired upon by southern forces....

Where shall I begin? When South Carolina seceded from the Union on December 20, 1860, Lincoln was faced with a dilemma. Should he take SC back by force, or should he bide his time and see how it all unfolds? The fledgling Confederacy made their point of view clear. Everything in every state that secedes is that state's property. That meant post offices, police headquarters, roads, FORTS, etc. went with the state that left the Union.

Lincoln gave a statement to the papers that, until things got straightened out, the Union would not move, supply, or reinforce troops south of the Mason-Dixon line. They would maintain the status quo until everyone got to the same table to hash it all out. The Union's Major Anderson took it upon himself to move his garrison from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter breaking Lincoln's promise not even days after the promise was made. Breaking a serious promise not even days after it was made wasn't just a slap in the face, it was a clear message that the Lincolnites couldn't be trusted. At the time, everyone in the South foresaw Lincoln and his crew treating the South with as much honesty and integrity as America had shown the indians up to that point. That is why General Beauregard ordered the first gun fired 4am April 12, 1861! What's more, Anderson was given plenty of opportunities to lower the flag and get out of South Carolina's fort. He chose to ignore them all.

Viva Firefly!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 24, 2003 9:44 AM

VETERAN

Don't squat with your spurs on.

First, just because they said the Fort's were theirs doesn't mean they had the right to claim them.

Secondly, I disagree with your statement that Lincoln lied. His position was that status of the forts should remain as it was, this could simply be interpreted as possesions of the Federal Government, in which case the Union would have the right to reassign troups as it saw fit, especially inlight of a perceived military mobilization by South Carolina.

Thirdly, your argument would hold more water if Beauregard fired on Sumter immediatly after, Anderson (who sympathized with the South) had moved his garrison. This wasn't the case, Beauregard didn't fire a shot for almost 31/2 months. In that time period, Florida, Georgia, Alabama, and Arkansas all seized forts or arsenals, and Mississippi fired on a Federal warship. Sounds pretty agressive on the part of the southerners.

One last general comment. I've read comments and articles on this board referring to Linclon as a liar and despot, I feel these comments are out of line. He his one of this country's greatest presidents. He did what he had to do to preserve the nation and, even if you have objections regarding the way he went about it, this country and the world is better of for it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 24, 2003 3:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Veteran:
First, just because they said the Fort's were theirs doesn't mean they had the right to claim them.

The only other option was to tell the Union to come get their forts off of southern land. Since this isn't practical, the South couldn't be expected to tolerate "foreign" troops in "foreign" forts all throughout the South. If the South had the temerity to secede, then why wouldn't they go the extra two inches and claim the forts too?

Quote:
Secondly, I disagree with your statement that Lincoln lied. His position was that status of the forts should remain as it was, this could simply be interpreted as possesions of the Federal Government...

I never said that Lincoln lied. I said that Lincoln made a promise that his people didn't keep. Maintaining the status quo wasn't meant to hang on to one or two forts, it was meant to stave off war until all parties could come to the negotiating table.

Quote:
Thirdly, your argument would hold more water if Beauregard fired on Sumter immediatly after, Anderson (who sympathized with the South) had moved his garrison.

On the contrary, the fact that Beauregard waited as long as he did before he fired shows that the South was not itching to be the agressors, but it was only after failed peaceful attempts to reclaim their fort did they take action.

Quote:
One last general comment. I've read comments and articles on this board referring to Linclon as a liar and despot, I feel these comments are out of line. He his one of this country's greatest presidents. He did what he had to do to preserve the nation and, even if you have objections regarding the way he went about it, this country and the world is better of for it.

I agree. Lincoln had suspended no more civil liberties than any other American president has in war time. He is one of the shrewdest and effective statesmen to ever grace the presidency.

Is the world a better place because America is whole and sound? I'm sure the Muslims, French, Germans, and whatever Communists are left don't think so.

Is this country better off because America is whole and sound? YES. Although I think that 95% of the things that are being hashed out in congress have no place there. If Alabama wants to have the 10 Commandments in front of their Court, that's Alabama's business, not the Federal Government's. If Texas has a problem with religious zealots stock-piling guns in Waco, Texas should handle it. The FBI has no right to go in and burn down a compound with women and children it! America is a better place because of how the Civil War turned out, but it would be an even better place if state's rights weren't completely ripped away and a megalo-government foisted on us. Why even have states at this point?

Viva Firefly!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 24, 2003 4:01 PM

BLACKSTAR

Oh, my God!!! What could it be? Another Civil War debate!! We're all doomed!!! WHO'S FLYING THIS THING!!! Obviously, not me....

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 24, 2003 4:07 PM

Yeah, I think we should probably start a new thread if we want to continue the Civil War war. We should leave "Guns in the 'verse" for gun discussion. Sorry 'bout hi-jacking your thread.
The M-16: Pro or Con?

Viva Firefly!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 24, 2003 4:15 PM

BLACKSTAR

Not my thread, I've just noticed that this is the second time recently that a Civil War discussion has preempted another topic... I'd love to see a whole thread dedicated to it... and leave this one for it's intended purpose... in short I'm just an anal-retentive a**.

P.S. Pro M-16 with proper background checks and restrictions with stiffer punishments for violaters of said restrictions...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 24, 2003 5:57 PM

VETERAN

Don't squat with your spurs on.

Sorry, wasn't thinking about getting off topic. I love history and was just commenting on something that came up.

Back to guns, how do we know automatics aren't as reliable as revolvers, anyone have combat statistics, what's Guns and Ammo got on this, anyone got a subscription? I thought the 1911 Colt was one of the best handguns evermade, the only revolvers that match it for stopping power are the magnums and those are a more recent development. The 1911 still has one more round in the clip after either a .357 or .44 has fired its last shot.

The 9 mms can carry more ammo especially if you get a preban clip (some hold upto 18 rounds), good for suppressive fire, might not stop a guy immediately but will certainly make him keep his head down.

What about really poor transport captains, would they stoop to crossbows? That would have a very Mad Max look don't you think.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 25, 2003 5:23 AM

Although I don't have combat stats (likely very hard to come by.. "excuse me, sir. Could you fill out this survey during your next firefight?" - sorry, couldn't resist) nor do I have a subscription to a fiearms magazine, I can say from experiance that there are certainly automatics that can match most revolvers for reliability and more than a few revolvers that can't fire right even when they've been kept in prestine condition.

As for stopping power, a lot of that has to do with caliber and type of round. Different types of bullets (lead ball, jacketed ball, hollowpoint, silverpoint, etc) can have drastically different effects on their targets. Also, different types of powder loads are available for most if not all commercially available cartrige ammunition. This will effect velocity of the round, thus the effectiveness of the round under certain conditions. From Jaynes discussion with Mal in Objects in Space, I would guess that most of the ammo used by the crew is ball of some type (bare lead, jacketed). Another point in favor of this theory is the fact that it's much cheaper -> easier to throw/cast lead ball than to manufacture the more complex rounds.

As for crossbows... I doubt it. Ammo (and guns for that matter) are likely much cheaper than fuel. A captian who can afford to fuel his/her ship, will probably be able to afford firearms. As a matter of personal choice, it might happen, and the captian who would choose a crossbow over a gun in this 'verse would be an interesting character indeed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 27, 2003 12:29 AM

OUTLAWTEXAN

A few points to make here, haven't been able to get on for a few days.

Firstly, apologies for causing the start of a War Between the States debate, although, considering the similarities of that real war and the fictional Firefly war, it isn't completely out of the question.

As far as the gun Mal uses while wearing his... costume (and delivers one of my very favorite lines of all time, "I swear by my pretty floral bonnet I will end you..."), I believe it is a cartridge conversion of a Le Mats revolver: a nine-shot cylinder with a small-guage shotgun barrel where the cylinder pin normally is, a favorite of Civil War cavalry due to the extra pistol rounds and the extra little oomph of the shotgun barrel. I'd have to review the ep again to be sure, and my tapes are rapidly deteriorating. I may have to wait for the DVDs to do that.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 27, 2003 4:49 AM