www.ditl.org

So, I'm re-watching the movie, and had a thought about the Romulan rifles Kirk and Sulu use to disable the drill platform: their rate of fire was impressive by 'Trek standards, and they seem fairly potent to boot. If we include the Countdown material, they could be Borg-enhanced (or reverse-engineered, etc), but if we just go by the movie as canon, then it seems the Romulans have some damned decent infantry rifles by that era, assuming that's what miners might have access to. However, they do look worn and utilitarian in the film, which could indicate that they're somewhat old.

I think there's some discussion to be had here that we haven't covered already.

I appear to have found an image which fits just about right to the films.


Now, they appeared to be both automatic (or quite fast firing semi-automatic) and they weren't too shabby in terms of firepower. The only thing I can think of is a lack of a iron sight or equivalent for aiming. But it's definitely a damn sight better than most star trek weapons attempts.

The pistol too is a fairly decent bit of kit, much improved from most Star Trek Handguns. With a proper handle and without looking like a DustDevil.

"Lack of iron sights?" These are energy weapons - any single point along the barrel can be used to sight the rifle, and you will never have to have a rear sight to adjust for windage, projectile weight, propellant load, et. al. Also, as you said, these were used by miners - "worn" doesn't necessarily have to coincide with "old."

I merely said that criticism as it has been a criticism of energy weapons on here before; gun looks like a gun to me

I've never heard "lack of iron sights" as a criticism of a directed-energy weapon. How exactly would that be a detrimental factor, unless we assume variations in bullet weight and propellant loads, and we assume wind and elevation could affect directed energy?

Mikey wrote:"Lack of iron sights?" These are energy weapons - any single point along the barrel can be used to sight the rifle

No it can't - you have to have at least two points in order to correctly align the weapon.

you will never have to have a rear sight to adjust for windage, projectile weight, propellant load, et. al.

So you'll only need battle sights - you still need two points.

Captain Seafort wrote:No it can't - you have to have at least two points in order to correctly align the weapon.

In the case of the "rifle" above (which is ridiculous in its own right - more on that in a bit^*) there are already enough features near where the receiver would be located in a gunpowder weapon, placed to give as long a sight radius as the weapon allows as long as there is a simple ramp or bead near the "muzzle."

^* - Of course, firing such a weapon as a rifle the way we know it would be ergonomically impractical - if not impossible - because of the stupid ornament rising from the top of the "stock" which would make achieving a cheek weld completely impossible for any firer that happens to have a head.

Mikey wrote:In the case of the "rifle" above (which is ridiculous in its own right - more on that in a bit^*) there are already enough features near where the receiver would be located in a gunpowder weapon, placed to give as long a sight radius as the weapon allows as long as there is a simple ramp or bead near the "muzzle."

There are various random lumps, none of which are even remotely worthy of being called sights. Of course, the fact that (as you pointed out) the thing makes the dustbuster look like a paragon of ergonomic design makes that particular issue moot - I was talking more in general terms that you cannot accurately aim a weapon without front and rear sights to align.

Well, you could be talking about pistol sights, which would require a specifically-notched rear sight to create a proper sight picture with a front ramp. There is a long and succesful history of longarms using a single bead sight at the muzzle, however.

Mikey wrote:There is a long and succesful history of longarms using a single bead sight at the muzzle, however.

Define "long" - it's only been in the last couple of centuries or so that a barn door has ceased to be a challenging target.

OK, how about "long" in this sense = "since buck-and-ball has ceased to be a typical load." Notch-and-post sights, much less aperture sights, are relatively new to being typical on rifles and still considered to be "tacti-cool" and somewhat uncommon on shotguns.

And before it gets said, yes - shotguns DO need to be aimed to be effective.

I had a couple of other thoughts looking at that "rifle." In addition to the question of aiming, the very "open" structure looks like it would make the thing a bit difficult or uncomfortable just to hold. It has relatively little internal volume also with all the open space, though as usual the question of where the working parts are might be waved away since it's all fictional technobabble anyway. Unlike most Starfleet weapons, there don't appear to be many controls or settings (unless they're not obvious) other than the trigger, which I suppose is fitting as a very simple utilitarian tool. These miners don't seem too concerned with "stun" settings.

I would imagine that they also use them as tools so they should have adjustable settings.

They're probably like Cardassian weapons. Stripped-down and with little features, but even after submerged in water for an hour they can still function.

RK_Striker_JK_5 wrote:They're probably like Cardassian weapons. Stripped-down and with little features, but even after submerged in water for an hour they can still function.

That was how I thought they looked. If there are any controls other than the trigger I can't see them in those pics. It's not at all like the later Starfleet phasers which seem to have a range from gently softening butter to vaporizing mountains.