Should an author bow to common perception even if reality doesn't match the common perception? I'm trying to construct a world where gunpowder is known but banned except for the very limited use of the noble court. So I thought about giving people pneumatic rifles. I've done the research and found plenty of evidence of pneumatic rifles being deadly and used in warfare, but I'm still worried the general public won't believe it. I'm afraid they'll think BB gun or something and won't buy into the threat. Does this fear hold water? Should I worry about it at all?
Posted by BenM (Member # 8329) on :
If you present it well enough there's no reason you can't make it believable. After all, characters in books are regularly throwing fireballs or travelling faster than light. If you want to make it seem more scientifically rigorous you might directly address common misperceptions, but that might draw attention to the technology and away from your story, which is probably bad.
Posted by satate (Member # 8082) on :
Being aware of how your work is recieved is part of writing, but I wouldn't take out pneumatic rifles. (by the way I have no idea what pneumatic rifles are or how they work) If I were you I would find a way to put in a description or explanation of how they work. The hard part will be making it seem as part of the story, not an info dump, within POV, interesting, and believable. Believability factor is something sff authors have to deal with it all the time. If you can make them believe magic is real you can make them believe pneumatic rifles work.
Posted by babooher (Member # 8617) on :
Thanks, BenM. You're right about not doing the info dump.
And thank you, Satate. Very good point about the magic and whatnot. As for what a pneumatic rifle is, it is an air gun; instead of a controlled explosion, compressed air is used to launch the projectile. I think pneumatic sounds more impressive and deadly than air gun.
Posted by Doc Brown (Member # 1118) on :
To distinguish them from BB guns make your pneumatic guns noisy. If they have the same energy as a gunpowder rifle they will make a similar bang.
Gunpowder is just a way of storing energy. If it's banned then people will find a different way to store energy.
BTW where do they get this energy? Do the shooters pump it manually for each shot like a BB gun? Or do they have a compressor that stores it up in some sort of tank?
Posted by rstegman (Member # 3233) on :
The only reason air guns (pneumatic rifles) are not used and gunpowder is, is because of Napoleon. He let it be known that he would torture to death anybody who was caught with one.
The air guns were quicker to load and delivered bullets with more power than the black powder guns of the time. They would have been superior up to the point that bullets were delivered in cartridges. Because there was no smoke, there were many situations where they would be superior. I saw a thing where a bad guy had some of the first smokeless gunpowder bullets. He held off a whole team of rangers because they had no idea where he was firing from.
If their technology is high enough, the "bullets" could be the compressed air chamber with the load already attached, cartridges. The cartridge seal is broken somehow and the bullet flies off. It could be indistinguishable from modern weapons in action.
The gunpowder by the noble court could well be like the Chinese, where gunpowder was used as noisemakers and entertainment, not as a weapon. Make gunpowder have a religious significance where it is either driving off bad spirits or is the release of good luck. The use of it as a weapon never crossed their minds.
Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :
I'm inclined to think the major advance in post-Napoleonic 19th century weaponry was more-widespread rifling of the barrels...making the bullets go farther (and more accurately) than they had before. The carnage of the Civil War can be attributed to attempting close-order Napoleonic-style battles when these newfangled rifles rendered that impossible.
Could an airgun deliver a bullet as far as one of these?
Posted by babooher (Member # 8617) on :
Doc Brown: right now I'm thinking most the pneumatics have a bullet like rstegman suggested with the compressed air chamber attached to the load.
rstegman: The banning of gunpowder in my creation is religious in nature. However, the use of gunpowder for weapons is already known. One of the underlying conflicts comes from this kind of friction.
Nowall: I saw reports of snipers using pneumatics so I'm assuming they'd have some range. All one needs is enough compression.
Thanks everyone for such good info!
Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :
Hey, I'm no expert---the bullet comes out this end, doesn't it?---and I only know what a voracious reading habit picks up. (I'm not even sure I spelled "voracious" right.)
Posted by Pyre Dynasty (Member # 1947) on :
Ever heard of a steam powered gun, they have to be mounted on a railcar, but in the right configurations they can be devastating.