Thanks for the info BM that's probobly why the guy's work I read just called it a "bullet" because the military its self doesn't call it a grenade.
M-16 is a pissy little 5.56? lol I got my AKs and my M's confused hehe the AK series fires 7.62 because the Russians prefer a heavier punch, interesting.
Oh and El-Phil as far as the subject of Kinetics vs Energy weapons goes I've done some reading inspired by your points and I find it interesting to note that in effect an "energy weapon" is still using Kinetic kill principles it's just different somehow.
I think a gravity based anti-bullet shield could slow down a bullet and reduce it's KE enough for the armor to stop the actual damage, however I do after reading agree with you that it could simply not stop ALL KE without using so much energy its self that the shield would require as much energy as the ship's entire systems.
Now on to the plausibility of shields using gravitic principals that doesn't actually require "physics defying" technology as it simply involves (not simply but you know what I mean) a race learning how to create an artificial gravity well around the ship. And I think you'd need to learn how to manipulate gravity to shoot a black hole at someone (and you said that's quite possible) so hehe.
As far as gravity without constant acceleration or rotation goes, no my ships don't have rotating sections but they are very often accelerating and the compensators drain off enough of the gravity effects to give the crew 1g on ship while the ship may actually be going 200 gravities.
However to not "fudge" that too much (using your favorite word lol) the compensators don't have infinite drainability and the faster the ship accelerates the more G force gets through to the crew so for an SD going 600 gravities the crew would be getting slammed with 5 G.
I know the very principal of an inertial compensator "defies physics" but at least here I'm trying to make one slightly more reasonable then the ST infini-compensator right
.
And the reason I get mad at you El-Phil is because I don't like being talked down too simply because I'm younger then a lot of you folks, if you are going to say something is "utterly impossible" give me more reasons then just "because physics says so" okay, like WHY physics says so.
I mean to be honest physics is a head-in-vice sort of science because you've got newtonian, relitivistic and some third one I can't remember lol and all of them have different principals and crap so it's hard to keep track of it all right
.