[TrashMan]

IIRC, I read on the Firefly wiki a good theory. The colonist's weapons are old because there was a ban on new tech enacted, and old guns could be grandfathered in. The alliance is the only authority allowed to carry lasers and the like. It's possible.

I still think it's too old. Remember, humans didn't leave Earth a year or two from now. They leave Earth after having invented FTL travel and constructed a massive fleet of starships. That's well into the future.
By that time, the M-16 would be severely outdated. But like I said...no biggie.

[General Battuta]

Do they still have the Freakin huge ship? 

You only actually see one Reaver ship, and it's relatively smaller.

[Dark Hunter]

They leave Earth after having invented FTL travel and constructed a massive fleet of starships. That's well into the future.

Actually, Whedon said that they don't have FTL travel. The original ships were multigenerational, and once in the new star system, they don't really need FTL travel... their ships need only travel at a fraction of lightspeed to make the time they take between planets/moons (several days or weeks) plausible.

[TrashMan]

That makes the travel take even longer then (and with it, pushed the time it's happening even further)

[Shade]

During which no R&D would have taken place as they were transport ships, not laboratories. Your point?

[Herra Tohtori]

That makes the travel take even longer then (and with it, pushed the time it's happening even further)

How much weapons developement do you see happening in confined space of an interstellar, transgenerational space ship?

Regardless, the argument of modern day weapons becoming obsolete has some holes in it. Mainly the fact that modern designs will kill just as effectively in the future as they do now. There are certain limits to improving small arms' deadlyness. Personal body armor developement might improve, but then the Alliance did win the war... also, pretty much only the soldiers use body armor of the best quality. Civilians would not likely do so apart from some security company employees, and thus the older weapon designs would still be effective.

Metals and alloys dictate the maximum velocity of bullets from a certain gun - too much gunpowder and the gun will wear down much faster then it should, or might even split up or expand the barrel. The industrial capacities of the Firefly solar system, apart from alliance controlled planets, don't really seem up to the task of manufacturing much more than relatively simple, modern day weapons. Besides, apart from caseless rounds I don't see very many improvements to be done to small arms, and even that step wouldn't likely be that big a step in the effectiveness of the weapons...

When it comes to accessibility, most likely any Afghan or Pakistani village blacksmith can make you an AK-47 copy, so guns like that would be way easier to get on backwater planets (on alliance planets, guns would probably be more difficult to get if you weren't in the military/law enforcement (though that seems to be the same posse in Firefly).

minor details ahead...

Spoiler:

Jayne's Vera does have some sophisticated aiming electronics and stuff, but it's still a rifle when it comes down to basics. The Lassiter laser was a relic from the Earth that Was, which suggests that the Exodus from Earth either stopped that weapons developement branch, or it proved to be unfeasible compared to conventional small arms. I would wager the latter.

[TrashMan]

During which no R&D would have taken place as they were transport ships, not laboratories. Your point?

Yeah, but the year when the fleet of ships would depart Earth would be 2100 or something, not 2005.
Weapons like X8 or HKG416 would be considered as old and obsolete as a WW1 rifle is today.
Something like a AK-47 would be really, REALLY old.

It's not the matter of using old rifles. It's the question of how old - especially, since if there was war before Earth was left, there's bound to be s***loads of more advanced weapons available.

[redsniper]

The AK-47 is already old and is still very effective today. It's a good design and it could easily be around 100 years from now.

[Mobius]

Weapons evolve faster than humans so a weapon that is able to kill a human now could be used for ages. The bow is many thousand years old but it's still used...maybe not on battlefields(too much unconvenient), but it still has its uses in various forms of hunting. Sometimes killers rely on bows and such weapons - the fact that they're old design doesn't imply that they don't hurt.

[Herra Tohtori]

...There's bound to be s***loads of more advanced weapons available.

No, that's an assumption you're making based on a very possibly incorrect extrapolation of small arms developement to this day, into the future.

There's no way to really know how some certain branch of technology will advance, and at what speed - especially in a future like Firefly's universe, which most likely won't even happen.


There's actually two different assumptions: That there are more advanced weapons - better enough to make a maningful difference between performance - and that they would be available. Neither of these assumptions can be proven correct. The first is a problem because it assumes that there's something still to be developed in the basics of the small arms that makes it possible to achieve higher effectiveness - and I don't really seem how much more deadly small arms fire can ever be than it already is. It would require a lot stronger materials to construct stronger barrels, chambers and locks to achieve higher muzzle velocity by increasing the cartridge size and/or gunpowder amount and type.

Caseless rounds are probably going to be what peaks small arms developement for a long time, and their main advantage will be increased rate of fire and reduced price and weight of ammunition but as a disadvantage, they require a bit more complex weapons as far as I know. And the basic appearance of the weapons would stay much like it is now. Basic concept is same. Self-propelling rounds might be a next step, but again, more difficult construction -> less widespread distribution.

Tech developement is difficult to predict, but the way I see it, saying that small arms will advance to be significantly more effective from what they are now is like Roman gladiators saying that swords are going to be sooo much more better in 300 years. Sure, they designs changed but the basic premise stayed the same, it's a blade, how much more deadly can it be (in the hands of someone who knows their business). Sure, there were a lot of different stages in swords, different techniques (from cutting to stabbing to slashing to prying harnesses apart to light blades of the New era, and that's just the Western history of a sword in a nutshell) but the basic deadlyness of a sword was roughly the same ever since they moved from bronze to steel. Moving from bronze to steel in swords is kinda like moving from muzzle-loading firearms to cartridge based ammunition. Until something landbreaking comes along, I would predict that the basic effectiveness of small arms fire will stay roughly the same. You'd need to get something like vibroblade or light saber to make the premise of a sword more effective than it is - and something of similar magnnitude to improve small arms effectiveness in my opinion.

Mind you, there actually IS a weapon in Firefly that is ****loads more advanced than the conventional small arms used - in a way. But if I recall correctly, there was a reason why it never become widespread. I already mentioned about it in spoiler tags. It never managed to replace firearms, so there had to be some catch to it.

And talking about availability, the aforementioned weapon is one of it's kind as far as I remember. Might have been a few of them in existence, but the basic point is the same. Simple designs of modern day firearms are deadly and easy to manufacture compared to highly sophisticated weaponry, and no matter how much better the new designs were, the difference in lethality is going to be marginal at best as long as the premise of small arms stays the same, so cheap, replaceable, durable and deadly weapons like shotguns (sawed-off or not), handguns, rifles and simple assault rifles like the AK-47 basic design will stay effective enough to be worth using. Both the Alliance and especially the Browncoats would have benefited from cheap and easy mass production more than sophisticated designs that were somewhat more effective. And of course, civilian weaponry will always be more variable than military weaponry...

Also... what Mobius said. Arrows even penetrate body armour better than assault rifle rounds. Are they more or less effective?

But I think this is well enough of this tangent...

[IceFire]

I doubt Joss Whedon was too concerned with this.  Yes its the future but its also supposed to draw on some elements of Westerns and the whole Wild West.  Its a bit of both which sometimes confuses people but I think it works brilliantly.  So no doubt the look of the guns is intentional to the extreme.

But I do agree that I think we're at a point...and we've sort of been there since the 1930s or maybe earlier where small arms is about as basically developed as its going to be.  An M1 Garand would still kill someone just as effectively as an M-16 or G36 would today....fundamentally not much has changed.  The bullet sizes and types are basically the same, the velocities involved aren't drastically different, in some weapons not even the fire rate is that significantly different.  There's still a bullet, a chamber, some gunpowder, and the rest.  Whats changed is the refinement...now an assault rifle can very easily have range, accuracy, and fire rate all in one package.  Some rifles now can fire many thousands of rounds without jamming or needing to be cleaned.

So in the Firefly universe...maybe the guns are so good they are self cleaning and can fire reliably many millions of times.  I don't think lasers as a general use weapon was the right aesthetic for the show so this is what they went with.  Not impractical.  Its just that some of us grew up watching Star Trek and expecting the future to be full of phasers and not current conventional firearms.

[karajorma]

The AK-47 is already old and is still very effective today. It's a good design and it could easily be around 100 years from now.

Well it's lasted more than 60 years as it is.

[Akalabeth Angel]

      Remember that there's a wide technological shift between the so-called core planets and the out fringe planets. You say that oh, shotgun doesn't make sense. Well who's making it though? If it's made locally, on the outer worlds, then yeah it does make sense. Make what your technology allows for. If it's on the core worlds, then no it doesn't really. But then again in Firefly they have those crap energy guns on the core worlds as you'll see.
      And realistically slug throwers are the way to go. All these shows with energy weapons as the main weapon of choice are a pile of bull**** from what I've heard. And in terms of modern weapons. Well yeah, the AK-47 has more penetrating power than the M1 or M16 whatever it is. the AK-47 will shoot through a wall, it's VERY dependable, low maintenance, etcetera. The american guns are none of those things. The M16s of today have less range than the rifles used during WW2. And a lot of the rifles used during WW2 were the same rifles used during WW1 (same with the machine guns).

      And for Firefly, It's the same with the horses. People on the outer worlds ride horses because, where are they going to get fuel for their car? If you drop down fossil fuel burning vehicles, then you also need fossil fuels, etcetera. Drill for that, or ship it out. Instead, just drop down horses and they can eat the food.

[IceFire]

AK-47 has more penetrating power because it has a larger bullet but it means that the ammunition is heavier.  And while allot has been written about the AK-47 and it being reliable...thats largely because it was designed to just fire.  Not well...but fire. It can be clogged with dust and sand or dirt and the idea is that it will still fire.  But it won't fire well under those conditions and its not nearly as accurate as other weapons.

The M16 has greater effective range than the M1.  Why do you say that they have less range?  Are you referring to the M4 perhaps?

I think the ideal rifle right now is either the FN SCAR or the G36.  Both are accurate and apparently quite reliable.

[Herra Tohtori]

I think the ideal rifle right now is either the FN SCAR or the G36.  Both are accurate and apparently quite reliable.

Ideal depends on conditions.

On open terrain, smaller caliber rounds like 5.56 mm are better than 7.62 mm rounds because they fly faster and straighter in ideal conditions, so they are more accurate and have - as far as I know - larger effective range. However, in terrain cluttered with trees and other obstacles and where visibility is shorter, larger rounds tend to become the better option. Lightweight bullets are deflected by obstacles much more than heavier rounds, and when the range is smaller, the advantages from increased accuracy diminishes anyway. What comes to penetration and tissue damage, there are a lot of factors that are at work there, but as a rule of thumb thin bullet penetrates better than wide bullet, but heavy bullet penetrates deeper than a lightweight bullet, so it also depends on what the target material is.

Tissue damage is another factor where a lot of variables are at work. Basically, a faster round creates a cavity of expanding water vapour that causes way more damage than slower round. Then there's also the issue of bullets deforming and turning while in the body, which also can increase the damage caused. 7.62 mm full metal jackets tend to go straight through human torso, so the damage is limited to wound channel and immediate surroundings. Fast 5.56 mm and equivalent rounds blow up the tissue they hit.

As cheesy as it sounds, I'm of the opinion that Finnish RK-95 is perhaps the best assault rifle model when it comes to all-round performance, maintenance and production factors. It uses the exact same mechanism as AK-47, but the production standards and tweaks to the parts like sights make it much more accurate as well as reduce the recoil and weight. Apparently the Israelis thought the same when they based their Galil rifle on it. Of course, ideality to me implies ideal in Finnish conditions, which are not quite as enclosed as jungles of Vietnam, but still you rarely see past few hundred metres, apart from some arctic regions and bogs of course, but going through a bog with enemies possibly on the other side is not a smart move anyway... Urban warfare is of course a whole ballgame on it's own, with it's own special demands for weaponry and other equipment.

Of course the Russians do have high quality rifles based on the design as well, but they moved to 5.56 5.45 mm with the AK-47 while the Finnish RK's all use the 7.62x33 caliber rounds...

[TrashMan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VHS_assault_rifle

[General Battuta]

My vast experience playing STALKER suggests that the G36 is a superb rifle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VHS_assault_rifle

It superficially resembles the FAMAS? That is a FAMAS! Odd.

[Akalabeth Angel]

AK-47 has more penetrating power because it has a larger bullet but it means that the ammunition is heavier.  And while allot has been written about the AK-47 and it being reliable...thats largely because it was designed to just fire.  Not well...but fire. It can be clogged with dust and sand or dirt and the idea is that it will still fire.  But it won't fire well under those conditions and its not nearly as accurate as other weapons.

The M16 has greater effective range than the M1.  Why do you say that they have less range?  Are you referring to the M4 perhaps?

I think the ideal rifle right now is either the FN SCAR or the G36.  Both are accurate and apparently quite reliable.

     Yeah I dunno what rifle is what. All I heard was that modern infantry weapons don't have the range of decades-old guns because they're designed more as close-quarters sort of guns, to be fired in short bursts. But I know quite a few people who know a lot about nothing so maybe I heard that from one of those know-nothings types

[Herra Tohtori]

As a rule of thumb, all semi-automatic (self-loading) weapons use some of the cartridge's released energy for the loading action, which reduces the muzzle velocity ever so slightly. Also, on bolt action rifles the cartridge sits in the chamber somewhat more firmly, further increasing accuracy and efficiency as less gases escape that-away. The difference is not notable, though, for normal infantryman - but there's a reason why snipers used bolt action rifles and still do, although semi-automatic sniper rifles such as Dragunov are also used. The reason why modern assault riflers in general have lesser effective ranges is because of the smaller cartridges.

M1 Garand was one of the first self-loading rifles. It also used slightly smaller cartridge than Lee-Enfield, Mosin-Nagant and Karabinier K98. As a consequence, it's effective range was slightly lesser than with those other weapons. As a comparision, list of effective ranges of some weapons... (and theoretical range, whatever that is - someone seems to like adding that to Wikipedia articles)

Code: [Select]

Weapon               eff. range

M1 Garand            457 m             
Lee-Enfield          914 m, theoretical range 1828 m
Mosin-Nagant         548 m, theoretical range 1828 m (Finnish variants had superior accuracy compared to Russian originals)
Karabinier K98       500 m with iron sights, +800 m with optics

AK-47                300-400 metres depending on quality of weapon and ammunition...
AK-74                500 metres according to some sources
M-16                 550 metres
RK-62                officially 300 metres, but I'd say that official number is a bit shy as far as accuracy goes.
RK-95                officially 300 metres.

Basically... Assault rifles that use small rounds with short cartridges (5.45x39 mm for AK-74, 5.56x45mm for M-16) gain a range comparative to WW2 rifles, which used large rounds and long cartridges (approximately 7.7x56 mm for Lee-Enfield, and pretty much same sizes for others). Assault rifles that use large rounds with short cartridges suffer somewhat in range, like the 7.62x39 cartridge used by AK-47 and RK rifles.

And, of course, the length of the barrel affects the muzzle velocity as well as accuracy by shortening the sights span. The longer the barrel, the longer the acceleration... to certain limits. That's why carbinized weapons typically have lower effective range than their full-fledged rifle counterparts.

[Colonol Dekker]

Nothing's ever guaranteed to hit 100% though I'm happy with the Enfield L85A1 plus outrigger. If i could get any rifle for distance shooting, (120+)  purely based on what i've used, taking into account comfort and accuracy and ease of carriage. Then i'd take a Robar sl12. Only thing is, they're not that common and replacement parts would set me back a small fortune as it's quite a specialist purchase.