|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 7:32 pm
ok, to me, for the last idk... 40 years, it seems to uneducated me, that guns are generally about as good as they can be... like, is the FN SCAR or Tavor really alot better than M16A1 by alot? by alot, i mean, worth 40+ years and quadrillions of dollars in R&D? yeah they don;t jam as much or are slightly more accurate and "comfortable" to hold... but really? is that the best we can do?
idk, maybe i have just to much expectation, but it seems to me that by now, guns should be past throwing steel the same way they did 100 years ago... that metal storm thing that shoots like 1000000 RPM is the only real "innovation" i've seen in a while... and it;s really falling by the way side in terms of mainstream knowledge and ..idk, acceptance (?)
idk, what are your thoughts? any ideas what the next step could be? (InB4 star wars blasters)
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 8:35 pm
the way I see it. As of right now, there isn't a more practical way of doing damage at long ranges than a controlled explosion inside a barrel that sends a hunk of lead/copper/steel/etc... down range. Other methods are just not practical with either the technology we have today or just in general not practical in he field. Other methods: Rockets: Slightest design flaw leaves you with something more dangerous than a Glock or Japanese pistol. AKA kB! Lasers: Too much energy that isn't reliably available on the spot, also can you say mirror? Rail-Gun: More practical than but same basic problem as lasers. caseless ammo: G11 and P11 were built by HK. However, it is still the same as now, just no brass.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 9:24 pm
The only innovation I could see as being useful is possibly an impact detonated explosive inside the projectile or if we started using depleted uranium ammunition in small arms. The impact explosive might be hard to design. It wouldn't be like the explosive power of a grenade, but more like a fire cracker. If one of those goes off inside your arm that's doing a hell of a lot more damage. As for DU it's heavier than lead and hard as steel so it hits pretty hard but it won't expand in the body. Maybe a DU core with a soft lead exterior would be useful. Besides DU outside would probably be pretty harsh on the rifling.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 9:51 pm
I had this idea for a gun that fires bullets which shape themselves mid-flight depending on how fast the bullet is fired. The gun could adjust the velocity of the rounds, which would be fired via magnetic acceleration. At the lowest speed, it would act like a rubber bullet, and at the highest speed, it could penetrate steel armor.
I have no idea how this would work, and even if it was possible it would probably be at least a century away, but I like the idea nonethless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 14, 2010 1:37 am
You forget just how slowly the weapons industry really moves. Remember that for thousands of years we were using bows and arrows that remained basically unchanged. They may have gotten longer or shorter or shoot farther or have a stock, but they were all the same general thing. Until we figure out the next fast, easy, efficient way to bring a man down, we're gonna stick with our M4s and whatnot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 14, 2010 2:02 am
Das Rabble Rouser The only innovation I could see as being useful is possibly an impact detonated explosive inside the projectile or if we started using depleted uranium ammunition in small arms. The impact explosive might be hard to design. It wouldn't be like the explosive power of a grenade, but more like a fire cracker. If one of those goes off inside your arm that's doing a hell of a lot more damage. As for DU it's heavier than lead and hard as steel so it hits pretty hard but it won't expand in the body. Maybe a DU core with a soft lead exterior would be useful. Besides DU outside would probably be pretty harsh on the rifling. The problem with impact explosives is that the bullet reaches maximum velocity in four inches, and slows to a stop again in twelve to sixteen inches. So any impact explosive would kB!. Also, caseless ammo tends to have a heat problem. Mainly, cook-offs and kB!s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:04 pm
Y'know, I really don't see the point of the Metal Storm project. One barrel costs a lot. 36 cost a hell of a lot. One action costs a lot. 36 cost a hell of a lot, etc. Why is spending possibly millions of dollars to create a (large, bulky) machine that can throw a million small projectiles really fast better than spending a few thousand to create a machine that can shoot one huge slug and do just as much damage with more penetrative power?
I can see the allure of Metal Storm; it looks like someone created a hacked gun in a video game that can shoot 69 boolits at once a kajillion times a second. However, I don't see the practicality. Because outside of a hacked video game, you don't have unlimited funds, you don't have unlimited ammunition, things malfunction, and that über machine can't be stowed away inside a magic satchel for instant access everywhere you go.
But as for some the major changes firearms have gone through in the past 100 years:
Assault rifles
Direct Impingement
High-capacity magazines
Overall "shrinking" of ammo without any real detriment
Overall accurizing of designs without much reliability loss
Select-fire weapons have become standard among most militaries
And countless others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 15, 2010 12:35 pm
Rocky Sassoon Y'know, I really don't see the point of the Metal Storm project. One barrel costs a lot. 36 cost a hell of a lot. One action costs a lot. 36 cost a hell of a lot, etc. Why is spending possibly millions of dollars to create a (large, bulky) machine that can throw a million small projectiles really fast better than spending a few thousand to create a machine that can shoot one huge slug and do just as much damage with more penetrative power? I can see the allure of Metal Storm; it looks like someone created a hacked gun in a video game that can shoot 69 boolits at once a kajillion times a second. However, I don't see the practicality. Because outside of a hacked video game, you don't have unlimited funds, you don't have unlimited ammunition, things malfunction, and that über machine can't be stowed away inside a magic satchel for instant access everywhere you go. But as for some the major changes firearms have gone through in the past 100 years: Assault rifles Direct Impingement High-capacity magazines Overall "shrinking" of ammo without any real detriment Overall accurizing of designs without much reliability loss Select-fire weapons have become standard among most militaries And countless others. I could see Metal Storm being useful as an oversized mortar. That's about it. Because you got to admit, having sixty or seventy mortar shells falling on a target in thirty seconds would be pretty sweet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 15, 2010 3:20 pm
Requiem in Mortis Rocky Sassoon Y'know, I really don't see the point of the Metal Storm project. One barrel costs a lot. 36 cost a hell of a lot. One action costs a lot. 36 cost a hell of a lot, etc. Why is spending possibly millions of dollars to create a (large, bulky) machine that can throw a million small projectiles really fast better than spending a few thousand to create a machine that can shoot one huge slug and do just as much damage with more penetrative power? I can see the allure of Metal Storm; it looks like someone created a hacked gun in a video game that can shoot 69 boolits at once a kajillion times a second. However, I don't see the practicality. Because outside of a hacked video game, you don't have unlimited funds, you don't have unlimited ammunition, things malfunction, and that über machine can't be stowed away inside a magic satchel for instant access everywhere you go. But as for some the major changes firearms have gone through in the past 100 years: Assault rifles Direct Impingement High-capacity magazines Overall "shrinking" of ammo without any real detriment Overall accurizing of designs without much reliability loss Select-fire weapons have become standard among most militaries And countless others. I could see Metal Storm being useful as an oversized mortar. That's about it. Because you got to admit, having sixty or seventy mortar shells falling on a target in thirty seconds would be pretty sweet. It certainly didn't look like it was launching mortar shells.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 15, 2010 6:00 pm
Rocky Sassoon Requiem in Mortis Rocky Sassoon Y'know, I really don't see the point of the Metal Storm project. One barrel costs a lot. 36 cost a hell of a lot. One action costs a lot. 36 cost a hell of a lot, etc. Why is spending possibly millions of dollars to create a (large, bulky) machine that can throw a million small projectiles really fast better than spending a few thousand to create a machine that can shoot one huge slug and do just as much damage with more penetrative power? I can see the allure of Metal Storm; it looks like someone created a hacked gun in a video game that can shoot 69 boolits at once a kajillion times a second. However, I don't see the practicality. Because outside of a hacked video game, you don't have unlimited funds, you don't have unlimited ammunition, things malfunction, and that über machine can't be stowed away inside a magic satchel for instant access everywhere you go. But as for some the major changes firearms have gone through in the past 100 years: Assault rifles Direct Impingement High-capacity magazines Overall "shrinking" of ammo without any real detriment Overall accurizing of designs without much reliability loss Select-fire weapons have become standard among most militaries And countless others. I could see Metal Storm being useful as an oversized mortar. That's about it. Because you got to admit, having sixty or seventy mortar shells falling on a target in thirty seconds would be pretty sweet. It certainly didn't look like it was launching mortar shells. there were two different one that I know of, one shot bullets another shot grenades http://splodetv.com/metal-storm-mortar
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 15, 2010 6:23 pm
090Freak090 Rocky Sassoon Requiem in Mortis Rocky Sassoon Y'know, I really don't see the point of the Metal Storm project. One barrel costs a lot. 36 cost a hell of a lot. One action costs a lot. 36 cost a hell of a lot, etc. Why is spending possibly millions of dollars to create a (large, bulky) machine that can throw a million small projectiles really fast better than spending a few thousand to create a machine that can shoot one huge slug and do just as much damage with more penetrative power? I can see the allure of Metal Storm; it looks like someone created a hacked gun in a video game that can shoot 69 boolits at once a kajillion times a second. However, I don't see the practicality. Because outside of a hacked video game, you don't have unlimited funds, you don't have unlimited ammunition, things malfunction, and that über machine can't be stowed away inside a magic satchel for instant access everywhere you go. But as for some the major changes firearms have gone through in the past 100 years: Assault rifles Direct Impingement High-capacity magazines Overall "shrinking" of ammo without any real detriment Overall accurizing of designs without much reliability loss Select-fire weapons have become standard among most militaries And countless others. I could see Metal Storm being useful as an oversized mortar. That's about it. Because you got to admit, having sixty or seventy mortar shells falling on a target in thirty seconds would be pretty sweet. It certainly didn't look like it was launching mortar shells. there were two different one that I know of, one shot bullets another shot grenades http://splodetv.com/metal-storm-mortar The grenade one is the one I was thinking of.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2010 5:34 pm
I see what your saying. Basically you mean we arent going to have a jump in the quality of the gun like we did with the self contained cartridge + rifiling + mini ball. Really i think the next major step like one of those would likely be either exploding ammunition, some kind of inflight stablization like spring loaded fins for longer distance more accurate shots or the removal of powder in the form of a railgun type device. Still i bet any one of those is till 20+ years off.
Oh s**t, i forgot, look up an article on the Isreali boat raid, apparently they dug an intact shotgun effect like bullet that would be fired from a pistol from the head of one of the victims, handgun mini shotgun basically.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 12:29 pm
war_junky 91 I see what your saying. Basically you mean we arent going to have a jump in the quality of the gun like we did with the self contained cartridge + rifiling + mini ball. Really i think the next major step like one of those would likely be either exploding ammunition, some kind of inflight stablization like spring loaded fins for longer distance more accurate shots or the removal of powder in the form of a railgun type device. Still i bet any one of those is till 20+ years off. Oh s**t, i forgot, look up an article on the Isreali boat raid, apparently they dug an intact shotgun effect like bullet that would be fired from a pistol from the head of one of the victims, handgun mini shotgun basically. It's nothing new, I see this stuff all over at gun shows.  Why can't I post images?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 1:04 pm
090Freak090 war_junky 91 I see what your saying. Basically you mean we arent going to have a jump in the quality of the gun like we did with the self contained cartridge + rifiling + mini ball. Really i think the next major step like one of those would likely be either exploding ammunition, some kind of inflight stablization like spring loaded fins for longer distance more accurate shots or the removal of powder in the form of a railgun type device. Still i bet any one of those is till 20+ years off. Oh s**t, i forgot, look up an article on the Isreali boat raid, apparently they dug an intact shotgun effect like bullet that would be fired from a pistol from the head of one of the victims, handgun mini shotgun basically. It's nothing new, I see this stuff all over at gun shows. Why can't I post images? You've got picture blacklist turned on. We can all see them fine, you just need to fiddle with your preferences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 6:30 pm
090Freak090 war_junky 91 I see what your saying. Basically you mean we arent going to have a jump in the quality of the gun like we did with the self contained cartridge + rifiling + mini ball. Really i think the next major step like one of those would likely be either exploding ammunition, some kind of inflight stablization like spring loaded fins for longer distance more accurate shots or the removal of powder in the form of a railgun type device. Still i bet any one of those is till 20+ years off. Oh s**t, i forgot, look up an article on the Isreali boat raid, apparently they dug an intact shotgun effect like bullet that would be fired from a pistol from the head of one of the victims, handgun mini shotgun basically. It's nothing new, I see this stuff all over at gun shows. Why can't I post images? Sweet mother of God, is #12 bird shot really that small? And how long until Brady jumps on this as the next "cop-killer" bullet?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
