-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
100,000 Rounds Per Minute....
- Thread starter Weak 9mm
- Start date
imported post
Yeah that's the interesting thing about it at 100k rpm (Not rotations, lol). It's basically a shotgun that offers little change in the spread as it travels downrange. It's a rectangle of death flying downrange. It apparently fired about 5 rounds per barrel in that time, so now I'm wondering how it reloads.
If they could get it to reload a more significant number of rounds per barrel, this thing would be relatively devastating.
Yeah that's the interesting thing about it at 100k rpm (Not rotations, lol). It's basically a shotgun that offers little change in the spread as it travels downrange. It's a rectangle of death flying downrange. It apparently fired about 5 rounds per barrel in that time, so now I'm wondering how it reloads.
If they could get it to reload a more significant number of rounds per barrel, this thing would be relatively devastating.
asforme
Campaign Veteran
imported post
I believe the gun pictured is a version of this:
[flash=320,256]http://www.youtube.com/v/H3d3l4fw8_4&hl=en[/flash]
All electronic ignition and the bullet is always housed inside the barrel.
I believe the gun pictured is a version of this:
[flash=320,256]http://www.youtube.com/v/H3d3l4fw8_4&hl=en[/flash]
All electronic ignition and the bullet is always housed inside the barrel.
BobCav
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Everything has a weakness that can be exploited in some way. Everything.
The first rounds, being preloaded have essentially a shorter barrel andthereforeless pressure, less muzzle velocity, a shorter range and a greater bullet drop or less of an impact, assuming the bullet mass is equal. Automatic compensation would require computer controlled declination as the progressive rounds are fired, barrel lengths and pressures are increased and velocities/ranges increase.
That's assuming they don't use tailored powder burn rates for each progressive round. And yet that leads to another whole set of rules and exceptions.
Everything has a weakness that can be exploited in some way. Everything.
The first rounds, being preloaded have essentially a shorter barrel andthereforeless pressure, less muzzle velocity, a shorter range and a greater bullet drop or less of an impact, assuming the bullet mass is equal. Automatic compensation would require computer controlled declination as the progressive rounds are fired, barrel lengths and pressures are increased and velocities/ranges increase.
That's assuming they don't use tailored powder burn rates for each progressive round. And yet that leads to another whole set of rules and exceptions.
thx997303
Regular Member
imported post
not to mention the safety issues. most electronics can be defeated by emp, which is emitted by a whole plethora of things. who knows how they would react, fire all the rounds simultaneousy? fail to fire at all? Doesn't sound like something i'd be interested in.
PVT McDonald
not to mention the safety issues. most electronics can be defeated by emp, which is emitted by a whole plethora of things. who knows how they would react, fire all the rounds simultaneousy? fail to fire at all? Doesn't sound like something i'd be interested in.
PVT McDonald
imported post
Sure, but to think that the engineers that designed these weapons have not in any way considered the things that you guys were able to bring up in a matter of minutes is rather odd. Do either of you design brand new fully automatic weapons for possible military use?
If a standard EMP (Non-nuclear based) was such an extremely potent and massive threat to any and all electronics, then aircraft computers could possibly be destroyed or shut down by their own EMP generating systems on aircraft equipped with them. There are definitely ways to get around that. To assume these engineers are idiots is a bit ridiculous IMO. I seriously doubt the people operating these guns would just decide to throw out all of their regular weapons without extensive testing of this new technology either. Not to mention that with the amount of nuclear testing and EMP type weapons we've developed, the military is certainly going to think about this fact considering they'd be using this in combat. This stuff wasn't even designed for a civilian to use, so the thought basically had to be on military applications from the beginning.
Do you suggest that we get rid of all computers in everything? None of our vehicles will even operate under such conditions as you describe, where anywhere you go EMPs destroy any and all electronics. GPS systems, useless. Aircraft, useless. Any sort of missile, useless. Etc.
Sure, but to think that the engineers that designed these weapons have not in any way considered the things that you guys were able to bring up in a matter of minutes is rather odd. Do either of you design brand new fully automatic weapons for possible military use?
If a standard EMP (Non-nuclear based) was such an extremely potent and massive threat to any and all electronics, then aircraft computers could possibly be destroyed or shut down by their own EMP generating systems on aircraft equipped with them. There are definitely ways to get around that. To assume these engineers are idiots is a bit ridiculous IMO. I seriously doubt the people operating these guns would just decide to throw out all of their regular weapons without extensive testing of this new technology either. Not to mention that with the amount of nuclear testing and EMP type weapons we've developed, the military is certainly going to think about this fact considering they'd be using this in combat. This stuff wasn't even designed for a civilian to use, so the thought basically had to be on military applications from the beginning.
Do you suggest that we get rid of all computers in everything? None of our vehicles will even operate under such conditions as you describe, where anywhere you go EMPs destroy any and all electronics. GPS systems, useless. Aircraft, useless. Any sort of missile, useless. Etc.
Evil Ernie
Regular Member
imported post
Here kitty kitty kitty.....BRAPPP!!!!
Hey dog, quit poopin in my yard!!!.....BRAPPP!!!
Who says that "civilian" have no use for these kinds of weapons???
:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate
Here kitty kitty kitty.....BRAPPP!!!!
Hey dog, quit poopin in my yard!!!.....BRAPPP!!!
Who says that "civilian" have no use for these kinds of weapons???
:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate
BobCav
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Weak 9mm wrote:
Betcha I could buy or build an EMP device capable of disabling for about the cost of a car. Cost to double EMP hardening has always beenexponentially more thanthe cost to overcome with a larger warhead/device. Devices such as this are meant to shoot down missiles and the computers and radar systems required to control them effectively are manytimes the cost of the gun (and size). At least it was on the US Navy destroyer USS Arleigh Burke, my last ship.
It's more of a demonstration weapon that is technologically innovative, but leads to future breakthrough innovations and products. See http://www.metalstorm.com/
Weak 9mm wrote:
hehe...Yours? You own one? Cool! How about next week?
Betcha I could buy or build an EMP device capable of disabling for about the cost of a car. Cost to double EMP hardening has always beenexponentially more thanthe cost to overcome with a larger warhead/device. Devices such as this are meant to shoot down missiles and the computers and radar systems required to control them effectively are manytimes the cost of the gun (and size). At least it was on the US Navy destroyer USS Arleigh Burke, my last ship.
It's more of a demonstration weapon that is technologically innovative, but leads to future breakthrough innovations and products. See http://www.metalstorm.com/
BobCav
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Nope, Navy Engineer, they don't let us go topside without permission! But we had that same effect in the 400hz converter room...lots of ionization.
Nope, Navy Engineer, they don't let us go topside without permission! But we had that same effect in the 400hz converter room...lots of ionization.
imported post
No doubt, but again that's like arguing that we shouldn't use aircraft because they rely on computers. Very few of todays fighters could be flown at all without computer aid, the same goes for massive airliners. I prefer flying aircraft with mechanical linkages, but even those can fail. I bet you could still get a squib too btw. That would be nasty, so hopefully they've designed in a way for the computer to realize that one of the rounds did not fire properly.
I know they made the mistake of removing standard guns from fighter aircraft when they went to the F-4, and later regretted it because of the relatively poor ability of initial sidewinders and sparrows to find their target and detonate. Regardless, the fix isn't to get rid of all missiles and computer controls from aircraft, but instead to offer backup weapons, backup weapons systems, multiple aircraft and entirely other means of delivering ordinance.
All fighters now have a gun, but without a computer it's still not going to fire. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't deck guns on today's ships also require computers to control? I can't imagine manually adjusting large deck guns (I'm not sure of the naval artillery calibers in use today) for "windage and elevation" (I'm also not sure if those are the terms used when adjusting naval artillery) would be faster, or even possible in some cases, by hand. Perhaps you can, but again it would seem to be a disadvantage to get rid of the computers just because there's the slight possibility that one could fail.
If you only had a single one of these batteries AND you'd thrown out all of your standard rifles, artillery and all of your other weapons, then yeah I bet it would be a problem if it failed. But somehow I doubt they're going to replace every weapon they have with these. From what I understand they do have relatively specific purposes. It seemed like that little handgun they showed in the Future Weapons video was more of an example of the fact that they have the ability to miniaturize it. It's also a lot more handy to demonstrate to someone than lugging around one of those huge grenade launchers that fire something ridiculous like 400 rounds a second. It's a cool little showpiece. I can't imagine it being for sale to the general public anyway, as it appears to qualify as a machine gun/pistol.
It seems to me that if you're using it to knock down missiles you'd rather have it than not. If it fails then so be it. Know that I doubt anyone is going to claim, and I certainly don't, that electronics "CANNOT FAIL!111!1!!" When you get down to it, absolutely everything can fail, so why have any weapons at all? We all know that mentality wont get you very far. Even if it only worked 25% of the time I'd much rather have it than not. It's that much less of a chance that a missile can take you out. With today's computers though, I doubt you'd have anywhere near a 75% failure rate, and if you did I think they'd either get rid of it or fix it. With current technology that would be totally unnacceptable to most, if not all people involved in purchasing it.
No doubt, but again that's like arguing that we shouldn't use aircraft because they rely on computers. Very few of todays fighters could be flown at all without computer aid, the same goes for massive airliners. I prefer flying aircraft with mechanical linkages, but even those can fail. I bet you could still get a squib too btw. That would be nasty, so hopefully they've designed in a way for the computer to realize that one of the rounds did not fire properly.
I know they made the mistake of removing standard guns from fighter aircraft when they went to the F-4, and later regretted it because of the relatively poor ability of initial sidewinders and sparrows to find their target and detonate. Regardless, the fix isn't to get rid of all missiles and computer controls from aircraft, but instead to offer backup weapons, backup weapons systems, multiple aircraft and entirely other means of delivering ordinance.
All fighters now have a gun, but without a computer it's still not going to fire. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't deck guns on today's ships also require computers to control? I can't imagine manually adjusting large deck guns (I'm not sure of the naval artillery calibers in use today) for "windage and elevation" (I'm also not sure if those are the terms used when adjusting naval artillery) would be faster, or even possible in some cases, by hand. Perhaps you can, but again it would seem to be a disadvantage to get rid of the computers just because there's the slight possibility that one could fail.
If you only had a single one of these batteries AND you'd thrown out all of your standard rifles, artillery and all of your other weapons, then yeah I bet it would be a problem if it failed. But somehow I doubt they're going to replace every weapon they have with these. From what I understand they do have relatively specific purposes. It seemed like that little handgun they showed in the Future Weapons video was more of an example of the fact that they have the ability to miniaturize it. It's also a lot more handy to demonstrate to someone than lugging around one of those huge grenade launchers that fire something ridiculous like 400 rounds a second. It's a cool little showpiece. I can't imagine it being for sale to the general public anyway, as it appears to qualify as a machine gun/pistol.
It seems to me that if you're using it to knock down missiles you'd rather have it than not. If it fails then so be it. Know that I doubt anyone is going to claim, and I certainly don't, that electronics "CANNOT FAIL!111!1!!" When you get down to it, absolutely everything can fail, so why have any weapons at all? We all know that mentality wont get you very far. Even if it only worked 25% of the time I'd much rather have it than not. It's that much less of a chance that a missile can take you out. With today's computers though, I doubt you'd have anywhere near a 75% failure rate, and if you did I think they'd either get rid of it or fix it. With current technology that would be totally unnacceptable to most, if not all people involved in purchasing it.
bohdi
Regular Member
imported post
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/05/metal-storm-iro.html
This will get you there if you have enough of them
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/05/metal-storm-iro.html
This will get you there if you have enough of them