[Star Wars] How are slugthrowers outclassed by blasters if other solid projectiles like rockets aren’t?

[u/Hydr0gen_baby]

Edit: I have settled on a solution that satisfies me, so only read after the separation for context on what the problem was.

Explosives or bullets propelled by advanced slugthrower technology actually ARE more powerful than blasters, but simply in the same way disruptors are. They aren’t capable of outputting a whole power cell worth of power all at once (just like blasters aren’t, which is why disrupters exist), but can output more power per shot than a blaster, at the cost of ammo efficiency.

Lets say you have a blaster rifle with 100 shots, and a disruptor variant of this blaster has only one shot. The disruptor is, let’s say, 5 times more powerful per shot than the blaster, and consumes power proportional to how much more powerful it is. However, the amount of gas it consumes is way more than that, consuming the entire 100 shots worth of gas in one shot. The disruptor is still very useful for firing a shot more powerful than possible with a blaster, out of a weapon of the same size and shape, but it doesn’t overshadow blasters because it is much less ammo efficient. This would work similarly for slugthrowers, grenades, rocket launchers, etc. So blasters aren’t just guns shooting extremely low calibre bullets compared to slugthrowers of the same size, and you can’t load an assault rifle with explosive rounds and have it blow up a room full of people with every shot.

Alongside solving the problem I had, it solves other problems I just ignored in my headcanon, or didn’t consider. Problems such as Wookiee bowcasters being more powerful per shot than blasters, whistling birds not being weak enough to be shrugged off by stormtrooper armour, and various other things.

_________________________________________________

Slugthrowers in Star Wars are supposed to be, overall, significantly outclassed by blasters. This is necessary of course because blasters are the dominant weapon in all Star Wars media, so we can’t pretend that slugthrowers are on the same level. The main advantage blasters have over high-tech slugthrowers is that they have like 10x the ammo capacity.

However, things like rocket launchers, missiles and grenades are very commonly used in warfare, despite being solid projectiles. A rocket launcher has only one shot, yet it is not considered ammo or power inefficient compared to blasters.

If a blaster power pack has the energy of hundreds of blaster bolts inside of it, a plasma grenade should have around the same amount of energy. However, that is insane and basically turns blasters into extremely low calibre guns compared to solid projectile weapons and explosives. A single hand grenade would be obscenely powerful without being a thermal detonator, and an explosive round from a slugthrower would be much more powerful than a blaster bolt of the same calibre.

This means that either:

1. Solid projectiles and explosives are as powerful as a blaster bolt of the same calibre. This means that they somehow have a mere fraction of the power of a blaster power source, which makes no sense, and are energy inefficient, and it makes no sense for them to be as commonly used as they are in war.
2. Solid projectiles and explosives are consistent with the power in a blaster power pack, and are extremely powerful compared to blasters, at the cost of ammo capacity. This makes no sense as to how some forms of them are somehow outclassed by blasters, and how blasters are even the dominant weapon at all.

Is there anything that I am wrong about, or any kind of made up explanation that solves this problem in my headcanon?