Star Wars, Lightsabers, and submachine guns

[Spade Lead]

This lasers vs bullets argument seems to be fairly arbitrary to me. What I see as a much bigger issue is, why do people only ever fire their blasters at Jedi on semi auto? Seriously? They can't be expecting us to believe that every handheld gun in the galaxy has the same rate of fire as a repeater rifle. In fact, in games like Battlefront we see that the standard issue blasters for regular troops of every faction have full auto capabilities, but to my recollection, in the movies, everyone who fires a blaster rifle at a jedi fires one bolt per trigger pull! So, what would happen if a Jedi went up against an assault rifle or even a light machine gun with no cover and only his lighsaber to protect him? With that volume of fire, surely he'd only be able to block one or two shots before being overwhelmed?

Modern military tactics suggest that the only time you ever go full auto is for suppression fire, which is where you blindly fire around the corner in the general direction of your foes to keep their head down, and NEVER do that for prolonged periods, otherwise you will damage your gun by overheating it, and if that is true of bullets, imagine the heat generated by a gigawatt laser.

 

[Spade Lead]

"... a lightsaber could just vaporize what few bullets would find their mark even if the Jedi didn't feel like reflecting them."

Alright, this is just minorly annoying, but I'll just quote This article [http://what-if.xkcd.com/16/], basically replacing lightning with lightsaber:

What would happen if lightning A lightsaber struck a bullet in midair?
The bullet won't affect the path the lightning takes. You'd have somehow to time the shot so the bullet was in the middle of the bolt when the return stroke happened.
The core of a lightning bolt is a few centimeters in diameter. A bullet fired from an AK-47 is about 26 mm long and moves at about 700 millimeters every millisecond.
The bullet has a copper coating over a lead core. Copper is a fantastically good conductor of electricity, and much of the 20,000 amps could easily take a shortcut through the bullet.

Surprisingly, the bullet handles it pretty well. If it were sitting still, the current would quickly heat and melt the metal. But it?s moving along so quickly that it exits the channel before it can be warmed by more than a few degrees. It continues on to its target relatively unaffected. There are some curious electromagnetic forces created by the magnetic field around the bolt and the current flow through the bullet, but none of the ones I examined changed the overall picture very much.

So, deflecting it isn't all that much of an option, so... Yeah, Ballistic Gunslinger against Jedi, gunslinger would win, because lightning bolts are basically bolts of plasma. So, I suppose against Jedi, it's the most valuable weapon... I suppose it wouldn't be as useful to anything else.

The thing is, lightsabers use a magnetic field to contain the plasma, so it would not pass through the lightsaber, but be deflected like the blaster bolts, which are also magnetically contained, or captured long enough for the plasma to immolate it.

 

[Waffle_Man]

You and I must have watched very different kung fu movies. I remember some were being shot at by armies. Others were shot at while blindfolded. Not exactly what I'd call "controlled circumstances". Well, maybe the blindfolded ones, although the arrow still goes towards them.

Exhibit A: Regular monk vs. Bullet:

I would hardly call those normal monks. Many older kung fu movies did have monks with the ability to basically fly, but the whole surviving an army thing is largely a development due to the special effects available these days.

Still, I grant that it's hard to meaningfully speculate about how real world weapons would work in a world that doesn't meaningfully follow the laws of physics, for all I know the light sabers might turn bullets into slow moving gum drops...

 

[Twilight_guy]

Yes, blaster fire is slower than projectile weaponry. You based this upon...What now?

Because in sci-fi everyone uses LAZORS! Also light based weapons are more deadly then ballistic weapons and faster, since they travel at the speed of light. Star Wars would be less fun if you couldn't see the blaster shots though.

You realize that blaster fire is a laser and therefore, by definition, travels at the speed of light correct?

Thus, ballistic projectiles will never be able to go faster than blaster fire.

Here's the thing why are all of you assuming that the laser weapons in star wars move at the speed of light. We can clearly see the laser bolts fly through the air with the naked eye; considering you can see the individual bolt fly through the air it would definitely indicate that it is sign of it traveling far slower than the speed of light. If it were traveling at the speed of light it would travel from barrel to target far faster than you would be able to perceive.
Where as you don't see bullets travel through the air with the naked eye, thus it would stand to reason that in this scenario bullets would indeed be faster.

Okay, that pissed me off.
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Blaster
Blaster fire high energy particles. As you might have guessed a ball of energy that will explode on contact (as seen by the cheap spark effect when blasters hit anything) is more deadly then a slug of lead, for the same reason that a bullet that bursts into shrapnel on impact is more deadly then a conventional bullet.

It doesn't matter though since people even using guns that fire bullets is entirely dependent on the idea that these guns are available. Since Star Wars takes place in a galaxy far far away and long long ago, we cannot assume that they invented firearms. Blasters might have been invented instead of guns that fire bullets. You can't use a submachine gun if one was never invented. However, as noted in said article apparently lasers do exist but have since become obsolete.

On top of that, Star Wars is partially for kids and you can't shoot people in shows that kids watch, you can only use bloodless lasers that make people fall over. Conventional guns are less exotic then energy weapons and clash with the design of Star Wars. So, Rule of Cool.

 

[FalloutJack]

So, I have just one small thing that really bugged me about the star wars series...
Why is it always plasma weapons or lightsabers (Which can reflect Blaster Fire), and never, oh, lets say... Ballistic weapons, like a Submachine gun!? I mean, honestly, it seems to make sense, and it'll probably go faster then Blaster Fire it'll probably fire more then Blasters, leaving no time to respond, and can't be blocked! Why the hell does nobody REALIZE that!?

Just something that really bugged me.

I see a problem here, and it's twofold.

The first is that the energy weapons - they come in ion and plasma if I recall right - are light and energy traveling without friction through the air. Putting aside whether or not this is operating under the known laws of physics (energy moving at the speed of light), it's still faster than bullets, and the force-user instinct is heavily predictive and high-reflexive to cope with it.

However, the OTHER half of it is that what good ARE bullets to the sword made of light that cuts through everything? The bullets melt! I'm afraid it wouldn't fair much better.

Now, explosives...

 

[Rednog]

Yes, blaster fire is slower than projectile weaponry. You based this upon...What now?

Because in sci-fi everyone uses LAZORS! Also light based weapons are more deadly then ballistic weapons and faster, since they travel at the speed of light. Star Wars would be less fun if you couldn't see the blaster shots though.

You realize that blaster fire is a laser and therefore, by definition, travels at the speed of light correct?

Thus, ballistic projectiles will never be able to go faster than blaster fire.

Here's the thing why are all of you assuming that the laser weapons in star wars move at the speed of light. We can clearly see the laser bolts fly through the air with the naked eye; considering you can see the individual bolt fly through the air it would definitely indicate that it is sign of it traveling far slower than the speed of light. If it were traveling at the speed of light it would travel from barrel to target far faster than you would be able to perceive.
Where as you don't see bullets travel through the air with the naked eye, thus it would stand to reason that in this scenario bullets would indeed be faster.

Okay, that pissed me off.
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Blaster
Blaster fire high energy particles. As you might have guessed a ball of energy that will explode on contact (as seen by the cheap spark effect when blasters hit anything) is more deadly then a slug of lead, for the same reason that a bullet that bursts into shrapnel on impact is more deadly then a conventional bullet.

It doesn't matter though since people even using guns that fire bullets is entirely dependent on the idea that these guns are available. Since Star Wars takes place in a galaxy far far away and long long ago, we cannot assume that they invented firearms. Blasters might have been invented instead of guns that fire bullets. You can't use a submachine gun if one was never invented. However, as noted in said article apparently lasers do exist but have since become obsolete.

On top of that, Star Wars is partially for kids and you can't shoot people in shows that kids watch, you can only use bloodless lasers that make people fall over. Conventional guns are less exotic then energy weapons and clash with the design of Star Wars. So, Rule of Cool.

Uhh, you kind of missed the point, the question is not "are blaster weapons more deadly" it's why don't they use traditional ballistics instead. And you're initial answer was because they are light based they travel at the speed of light. Which in your wiki article actually refutes that and supports my position, because in fact the weapons are either high energy particles or plasma, thus they are not moving at light speed. If it were a true laser weapon it would hit near the speed of light, but they are not.

And to address your second point we can assume at some point there have been ballistic weapons, while we haven't seen ballistic guns we've seen the same idea of using a force to push a projectile. Boba Fett has a rocket strapped to his back; Luke, Obiwan, Qui Gon, Amidala have all used various types of grappling hook launchers; or the launched hooks to take down the AT-ATs. All based around the same principle. And while yes it just happens to be a side effect of limited resources/lack of imagination you wouldn't necessarily have the ballistic shape of the traditional gun for a laser weapon unless you had the ballistic technology previously.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Also - wouldn't bullets be more trouble? Can you imagine how many of them you have to carry?

Bullets are fairly heavy; however, militaries have managed to use projectile firearms for hundreds of years. A "standard combat load" for the US Army is 210 rounds for a rifleman. That weighs in at around seven pounds or less than 10% of a standard patrol load most of the time.

As opposed to one battery or whatever fuels the plasma guns.

Well, since we have no data on what those weigh or how many shots you get, the logistics argument is hard to make. The video games imply you have to reload regularly. I don't recall anyone ever reloading a blaster in the movies.

Also, what could bullets possibly do to a sheet of metal?

Go through it. A light rifle round can penetrate a significant fraction of an inch of steel. The M1A2 (The US Main battle tank) primary tank killing round is just a very large bullet moving fairly fast (the projectile itself does damage with sheer kinetic force - the same as a bullet only bigger) and it can defeat feet of steel.

What possible advantage do bullets have?

They can be manufactured in a machine shop using technology hundreds of years old. In the star wars universe there is also the notable fact that the Star Wars universe relies heavily on "deflector" shielding to survive - a technology that is utterly ineffective against kinetic projectiles.

They are bulky,

Not particularly, actually. Heavy yes - they are mostly metal after all.

unreliable,

This is quite false. With even rudimentary quality control standards, achieving a failure rate of a fraction of a percent is easy enough. Most failures to fire are not faulty ammunition but rather a faulty weapon (or a weapon that simply doesn't operate well using a particular type of round)

can only penetrate certain kinds of armour,

A chunk of matter going sufficiently fast will go through more or less anything. The Mass Effect universe relies largely upon this principle with relatively small slugs being propelled to staggering speeds which grants them tremendous power. The only reason this seems underpowered in any context is that Star Wars (or Star Trek if you prefer) throws units of measure around with no real concept of what they imply. Proton torpedoes carry more explosive power than all the nuclear arms ever built in the course of human history. Thus star wars technology is superior only in the sense that it relies upon magic.

Arguing practicality when one side gets magic is hardly useful.

even then not that many (you have to use different bullets for different situation),

This isn't particularly true and even in situations where performance of a weapon is highly mutable based upon ammunition choice, the fact that this is easily altered in a handful of seconds in a battle scenario is actually a point in the favor of firearms. For the most part, within given calibers there is not a huge difference in operational parameters when it comes to hurting people with the round. The 9mm and 9mm +P may have different muzzle energies that generally grant the +P round greater stopping power - that difference is not as significant as simply using the slightly larger .40 S&W or 10mm.

To put it another way, in spite of having access to many types of 5.56x45 NATO ammunition, the vast bulk of all rounds of that caliber ever fired are a simple full metal jacket example with a steel penetration core.

and, to top it off, aren't likely to be effective against each species. Oh, and aren't likely to work properly in different places.[/quote]

 

[Zack Alklazaris]

I'd love it so much if the seventh star wars film is just about a couple of guys with shotguns who wipe out all the jedis

I guess metal could be really rare in the universe & therefore cost too much, or maybe there are laws preventing its use as it's deemed too cruel. Although considering that weapons that burn people's flesh and cut them in half are perfectly legal, that's probably not true.

Nah they are building freakin "small moon" sized dooms day devices out of metal so thats not the issue. Honestly I doubt bullets could stop a jedi because they could force push the bullets away from them. Also if the lightsaber is hot enough it might just vaporize the projectiles. Bullets are also much slower and far less accurate than a laser. This is because bullets create drag which can cause them to move in the wind. They are also affected by gravity and can not go as far as lasers.

You want to defeat a jedi get a dozen Starfleet officers with phasers to attack them all at once. Since phasers can fire continuously there is no way for a jedi to block all 12 phasers hitting them at once.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Blaster fire high energy particles. As you might have guessed a ball of energy that will explode on contact (as seen by the cheap spark effect when blasters hit anything) is more deadly then a slug of lead, for the same reason that a bullet that bursts into shrapnel on impact is more deadly then a conventional bullet.

That's actually not true. A key goal when it comes to developing a new round is figuring out how to deliver as much energy to a target as quickly as possible. When a round breaks up upon hitting a target, the penetration capabilities of each fragment is less than if it stayed together - easily resulting in reduced wound severity. The Hollow Point round is designed to flatten and widen in service of the goal of coming to a stop more quickly. Indeed, a fair amount of effort has gone into the development of rounds designed to penetrate outer obstructions (heavy clothing for example) and penetrate some distance into flesh before the round begins to expand. The expansion is an attempt to balance the total mass of the round against available energy to launch the projectile against the desire to keep as much of the round intact as possible until it comes to a rest in a target.

It doesn't matter though since people even using guns that fire bullets is entirely dependent on the idea that these guns are available. Since Star Wars takes place in a galaxy far far away and long long ago, we cannot assume that they invented firearms.

I'd wager discovering the existence of a substance that expands rapidly under easily replicated and controlled conditions (gunpowder) and then connecting that fact to the ability to make heavy objects move very fast would come far in advance of discovery and harnessing plasma weapons.

Blasters might have been invented instead of guns that fire bullets. You can't use a submachine gun if one was never invented. However, as noted in said article apparently lasers do exist but have since become obsolete.

Firearms do exist in the star wars universe.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Submachine guns or assault rifles would work very well against Star Wars things "in reality", but if you try sticking reality into Star Wars all sorts of things stop working.

As an aside, something nobody seems to have mentioned, the blasters fire a projectile which moves slowly enough to track with the naked eye. You should be able to see it coming and stand a reasonable chance of ducking, or at least much more than with a bullet. Also, hitting a moving target would be awkward, as you'd have to anticipate movement a lot more.

 

[Random berk]

This lasers vs bullets argument seems to be fairly arbitrary to me. What I see as a much bigger issue is, why do people only ever fire their blasters at Jedi on semi auto? Seriously? They can't be expecting us to believe that every handheld gun in the galaxy has the same rate of fire as a repeater rifle. In fact, in games like Battlefront we see that the standard issue blasters for regular troops of every faction have full auto capabilities, but to my recollection, in the movies, everyone who fires a blaster rifle at a jedi fires one bolt per trigger pull! So, what would happen if a Jedi went up against an assault rifle or even a light machine gun with no cover and only his lighsaber to protect him? With that volume of fire, surely he'd only be able to block one or two shots before being overwhelmed?

Modern military tactics suggest that the only time you ever go full auto is for suppression fire, which is where you blindly fire around the corner in the general direction of your foes to keep their head down, and NEVER do that for prolonged periods, otherwise you will damage your gun by overheating it, and if that is true of bullets, imagine the heat generated by a gigawatt laser.

I'm well aware of the reasons for not going full auto Rambo style in real life. However, we're talking about an entirely different situation, where you're facing a single enemy with no gun of his own, in open ground, with nothing but a lightsaber blade a couple of inches across for cover. And even firing full auto for just two or three seconds would surely lay down enough rounds that the Jedi wouldn't be able to block it? In that case it seems like a better option to light him up and hope that he doesn't get a chance to deflect any of the bullets back at you than just plink uselessly at him and stand a very high chance of him bouncing your shots back, with a fairly low chance of actually hitting him.

 

[Bertylicious]

It's also worth considering that even at the height of the Jedi's power, there aren't that many Jedi about. Most of the time your troops are going to be facing conventional opponents who will rely on personal armour rather than magic. It stands to reason that with all the spacey type awesome stuff and mega structures that advanced, lightweight, materials exist that means that in order to defeat the armour you'd need every soldier equipped with some manner of anti-matiral weapon. An advanced energy weapon is probably a more effective solution.

Naturally none of this takes into account Ewoks. Perhaps they're a lot stronger than they look and their wee bows have remarkable torque?

 

[Milanezi]

I could try to come up with a in-universe explanation but why try?

The answer is and will always be: because it is cool and having the good guys die because of a weapon we have in our world is boring. Same reason they use fighters, big ass space stations and blaster canons with shorter range than modern missiles.


see also: Harry Potter and sniper rifles.

Real question is: Why do you want to ruin the fun?

Exactly, my principle is: it's called sci-FI for a reason, don't spoil with reality lol

 

[DoPo]

I would hardly call those normal monks.

I said "normal" with the quotes around it. Also clarified I talked about kung fu movie monks. So normal for kung fu movies. The Jedi are far above them, since they actually use magic, the monks didn't...well, it was all chalked up to training and such, and effectively looked like magic but it wasn't. Now imagine the monks could see the future and actually use telekinesis - those would be Jedi, so I don't get how OP can compare them to normal people.

As opposed to one battery or whatever fuels the plasma guns.

Well, since we have no data on what those weigh or how many shots you get, the logistics argument is hard to make. The video games imply you have to reload regularly. I don't recall anyone ever reloading a blaster in the movies.

I just assumed whatever they used to fuel the guns would be charged up again, so they wouldn't need that many extra "clips" to go around. Dunno, two or three per person seems logical, and they need those same two-three for the entire time they would serve in the military. As opposed to going through rounds and magazines all the time. Way less space and hassle required to transport laser weapons.

Also, what could bullets possibly do to a sheet of metal?

Go through it. A light rifle round can penetrate a significant fraction of an inch of steel. The M1A2 (The US Main battle tank) primary tank killing round is just a very large bullet moving fairly fast (the projectile itself does damage with sheer kinetic force - the same as a bullet only bigger) and it can defeat feet of steel.

Let me put it this way - with the abundance of battle droids that are used in warfare in the Star Wars universe, would you want to go there and shoot tiny holes in them? That's if you get to penetrate their exterior. Or would you rather go for a weapon that can burn a hole in metal?

What possible advantage do bullets have?

They can be manufactured in a machine shop using technology hundreds of years old. In the star wars universe there is also the notable fact that the Star Wars universe relies heavily on "deflector" shielding to survive - a technology that is utterly ineffective against kinetic projectiles.

One can assume that they moved past the need to protect from kinetic projectiles. It's, after all, another technology hundreds of years old. Also - robots.

They are bulky,

Not particularly, actually. Heavy yes - they are mostly metal after all.

They take up more space than the ammunition you'd need for laser weapons.

unreliable,

This is quite false. With even rudimentary quality control standards, achieving a failure rate of a fraction of a percent is easy enough. Most failures to fire are not faulty ammunition but rather a faulty weapon (or a weapon that simply doesn't operate well using a particular type of round)

Planets with different gravity would have a different bullet drop, bullets are they are also affected by wind. Put simply - the same weapon would have vastly different performance depending on the environment. As opposed to point and shoot and your shot going only ever straight.

can only penetrate certain kinds of armour,

A chunk of matter going sufficiently fast will go through more or less anything. The Mass Effect universe relies largely upon this principle with relatively small slugs being propelled to staggering speeds which grants them tremendous power.

Mass Effect has projectiles going at relativistic speeds. Star Wars (as far as I know) doesn't have that technology. Funnily, lasers shots move even slower. Normal everyday ammo which we have would generally be either be made to go through armour or not be very effective against it.

even then not that many (you have to use different bullets for different situation),

This isn't particularly true and even in situations where performance of a weapon is highly mutable based upon ammunition choice, the fact that this is easily altered in a handful of seconds in a battle scenario is actually a point in the favor of firearms. For the most part, within given calibers there is not a huge difference in operational parameters when it comes to hurting people with the round. The 9mm and 9mm +P may have different muzzle energies that generally grant the +P round greater stopping power - that difference is not as significant as simply using the slightly larger .40 S&W or 10mm.

To put it another way, in spite of having access to many types of 5.56x45 NATO ammunition, the vast bulk of all rounds of that caliber ever fired are a simple full metal jacket example with a steel penetration core.

Given the wide variety of species present, one would assume that some types of bullets would kill some of them even faster, or, maybe not do much damage to them. As opposed to point and shoot. I'd assume that the Star Wars rifles have some sort of dial or something to adjust the force of the shot - at least I would have made one, so you'll be able to use the weapon in more circumstances.

-misquote-

Erm, somebody else said that, not me.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Also, what could bullets possibly do to a sheet of metal?

Go through it. A light rifle round can penetrate a significant fraction of an inch of steel. The M1A2 (The US Main battle tank) primary tank killing round is just a very large bullet moving fairly fast (the projectile itself does damage with sheer kinetic force - the same as a bullet only bigger) and it can defeat feet of steel.

Let me put it this way - with the abundance of battle droids that are used in warfare in the Star Wars universe, would you want to go there and shoot tiny holes in them? That's if you get to penetrate their exterior. Or would you rather go for a weapon that can burn a hole in metal?

As an aside, you might want to go look at penetration tests on youtube of various types of weapons and ammunition.

Modern projectiles can penetrate a suprising way through all sorts of seemingly solid things.

unreliable,

This is quite false. With even rudimentary quality control standards, achieving a failure rate of a fraction of a percent is easy enough. Most failures to fire are not faulty ammunition but rather a faulty weapon (or a weapon that simply doesn't operate well using a particular type of round)

Planets with different gravity would have a different bullet drop, bullets are they are also affected by wind. Put simply - the same weapon would have vastly different performance depending on the environment. As opposed to point and shoot and your shot going only ever straight.

It is true that shot drop would be different in different gravities (excepting everywhere in Star Wars has the same gravity, it seems) and that's absolutely something that should come up more in sci-fi, but that's going to be the same as weapons firing slow moving red things.

I would hardly call those normal monks.

I said "normal" with the quotes around it. Also clarified I talked about kung fu movie monks. So normal for kung fu movies. The Jedi are far above them, since they actually use magic, the monks didn't...well, it was all chalked up to training and such, and effectively looked like magic but it wasn't. Now imagine the monks could see the future and actually use telekinesis - those would be Jedi, so I don't get how OP can compare them to normal people.

As opposed to one battery or whatever fuels the plasma guns.

Well, since we have no data on what those weigh or how many shots you get, the logistics argument is hard to make. The video games imply you have to reload regularly. I don't recall anyone ever reloading a blaster in the movies.

I just assumed whatever they used to fuel the guns would be charged up again, so they wouldn't need that many extra "clips" to go around. Dunno, two or three per person seems logical, and they need those same two-three for the entire time they would serve in the military. As opposed to going through rounds and magazines all the time. Way less space and hassle required to transport laser weapons.

Also, what could bullets possibly do to a sheet of metal?

Go through it. A light rifle round can penetrate a significant fraction of an inch of steel. The M1A2 (The US Main battle tank) primary tank killing round is just a very large bullet moving fairly fast (the projectile itself does damage with sheer kinetic force - the same as a bullet only bigger) and it can defeat feet of steel.

Let me put it this way - with the abundance of battle droids that are used in warfare in the Star Wars universe, would you want to go there and shoot tiny holes in them? That's if you get to penetrate their exterior. Or would you rather go for a weapon that can burn a hole in metal?

What possible advantage do bullets have?

They can be manufactured in a machine shop using technology hundreds of years old. In the star wars universe there is also the notable fact that the Star Wars universe relies heavily on "deflector" shielding to survive - a technology that is utterly ineffective against kinetic projectiles.

One can assume that they moved past the need to protect from kinetic projectiles. It's, after all, another technology hundreds of years old. Also - robots.

They are bulky,

Not particularly, actually. Heavy yes - they are mostly metal after all.

They take up more space than the ammunition you'd need for laser weapons.

unreliable,

This is quite false. With even rudimentary quality control standards, achieving a failure rate of a fraction of a percent is easy enough. Most failures to fire are not faulty ammunition but rather a faulty weapon (or a weapon that simply doesn't operate well using a particular type of round)

Planets with different gravity would have a different bullet drop, bullets are they are also affected by wind. Put simply - the same weapon would have vastly different performance depending on the environment. As opposed to point and shoot and your shot going only ever straight.

can only penetrate certain kinds of armour,

A chunk of matter going sufficiently fast will go through more or less anything. The Mass Effect universe relies largely upon this principle with relatively small slugs being propelled to staggering speeds which grants them tremendous power.

Mass Effect has projectiles going at relativistic speeds. Star Wars (as far as I know) doesn't have that technology. Funnily, lasers shots move even slower.

...

Hey? Laser shots move even slower than what? Travelling at the speed of light is about as fast as you can go (mind you, speed of light though a medium such as air is significantly slower than through vacuum).

Do ME shots move at relativistic speeds? That sounds rather absurd.

Now, mutliple MACH, fair enough.

 

[DJjaffacake]

Forgive me if this has already been posted, but lasers go in a straight line. Bullets, outside of vidya games, do not. Therefore it stands to reason that laser weapons are much easier to use, in addition to all the other reasons already given.

 

[RobDaBank]

Blasters aren't as likely to blast a hole in the side of the ship?

 

[Zykon TheLich_v1legacy]

Magical sci-fi bullshit? That was always my explanation.

EDIT: to add something positive, I think that as someone has already said, the question is not "why not use bullets" but why not use more dakka. Bullets or lasers will suffice.

 

[momijirabbit]

They could so block them, just not hit them back with the Lightsabers ( Bullets would melt in laz0r)