Metalstorm 'handgun'.... Yow!

[tekshogun]

imported post

Ah yes, the lovely Phalanx. Ever home should have one.

 

[bohdi]

imported post

Er, I don't know about all you that had been in the Navy, but our Phalanx wasn't exactly reliable, and I don't know if I would exactly want one that wasn't reliable for my house....

 

[buzzsaw]

imported post

I noticed that the prototype still insists on traditional trigger finger initiation. When is someone going to introduce an engineer to a scientist with some physiology training and come up with a thumb initiated system (other than the old MAW deuce)? Less deflection in the muscles of the forearm and disturbance of the target picture while firing. Computer gamers figured it out years ago. Oh well guess I'll go back to sleep.

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

buzzsaw wrote:

I noticed that the prototype still insists on traditional trigger finger initiation. When is someone going to introduce an engineer to a scientist with some physiology training and come up with a thumb initiated system (other than the old MAW deuce)? Less deflection in the muscles of the forearm and disturbance of the target picture while firing. Computer gamers figured it out years ago. Oh well guess I'll go back to sleep.

Sounds like you just volunteered to innovate. Let us know howyour ventureworks out!

Although the thumb is used for grasping the pistol, so I'm not so sure you could follow the "keep your finger off the trigger" rule with a thumb-trigger so easily.

 

[buzzsaw]

imported post

Thanks for the promotion but I'm more of an "ideas" kinda guy. Follow thru has never been my strong point. It just occurred to me that the traditional placement of the trigger had more to do with the mechanical linkage required by the old ignition systems. As far as finger on the "trigger" you could as easily set off an electronically controlled system with a clicker held in your teeth if it was considered desirable (think about your electronic car door lock). The point is that we have held to traditional methods without regard to the fact that many are not only no longer necessary but also they have built in disadvantages.

 

[Sonora Rebel]

imported post

buzzsaw wrote:

Thanks for the promotion but I'm more of an "ideas" kinda guy. Follow thru has never been my strong point. It just occurred to me that the traditional placement of the trigger had more to do with the mechanical linkage required by the old ignition systems. As far as finger on the "trigger" you could as easily set off an electronically controlled system with a clicker held in your teeth if it was considered desirable (think about your electronic car door lock). The point is that we have held to traditional methods without regard to the fact that many are not only no longer necessary but also they have built in disadvantages.

Aircraft guns have been fired by a thumb activated 'button' since prior to WWII on most...

 

[buzzsaw]

imported post

Rebel, PM sent.

 

[Diesel-n-Lead]

imported post

tekshogun wrote:

Ah yes, the lovely Phalanx. Ever home should have one.

A man can dream



BTW, was I hallucinating or did the Metalstorm rep have his finger INSIDE the trigger guard of that Beretta he was handling?

 

[buzzsaw]

imported post

If you were dreaming it must have been a bad dream and catching cause I saw the same thing.

 

[since9]

imported post

Aircraft guns are activated by the trigger, not a button. Why? It's intuitive - it's the way we all have learned to fire a weapon.

The thumb selector switch (not a button) is used to select between weapons systems: guns, missiles, internal stores (bombs).

 

[markand]

imported post

I can see huge advantages for military applications of the Metalstorm technology. Especially for large arrays of long barrels holding lots of rounds that could be mounted on a vehicle, aircraft, ship or other emplacement. Huge amounts of large caliber, full auto firepower.

For civilian and police applications, I think some would resist such a handgun because of the electric ignition, microprocessor control, the battery, etc. But I wouldn't dismiss the new-fangled technology quite so quickly, however.

Many years ago, pilots were aghast at the array of electronic flight instruments and gizmos that were showing up in airplane cockpits. Some pilots said they preferred the comfortable reliability of their own proven instruments: eyes, experience, judgment and seat of the pants guesswork. Would you be comfortable boarding an airliner if the pilot said he intended to ignore all that electronic junk and rely on his own instincts? No way. Flying "by the numbers" is essential for airliner safety. Heck, some military aircraft aren't even aerodynamically stable without their microprocessors (F-117, B-2 come to mind immediately.) If all the gizmos go, the pilot can only hope and pray he can pull the eject handle fast enough - before the plane flies itself apart.

Just a couple of years ago, quite a few gun owners and "experts" were saying laser or electronic sights had no place on a civilian defensive handgun. Probably some still do, but I've got 4 guns so equipped. And the naysayers aren't quite so shrill anymore, as both police and civilians are taking quite a liking to their lasers, and for good reason. These laser sights offer advantages I'm not willing to give up just because the batteries might drain or short out or whatever.

So I'll be cautious about a Metalstorm handgun, but open minded. If I think it has a place as a defensive handgun, at a price I can afford, why not? I can think of quite a few cool things this technology could deliver to police and civilian self defense and even hunting use. How about one barrel loaded with pepper spray rounds, or plastic or rubber slugs, or something else "less lethal" and the other barrels loaded with JHP? Let the user pre-select the active barrel, or the order in which they are used. How about loading one barrel with containers of shot pellets instead of solids? Might be attractive while hiking. Program it yourself so the first round fired is a shot pellet round for snakes or small varmints, then automatically switch to the JHP barrels. Or program it to shoot shot pellets if pointed downward, like at a snake, or .45 JHP if pointed anywhere else. A user programmable handgun? With 2 or more calibers or loads in the same assembly? Interesting. Perhaps it could it have a barrel or barrel assembly with flares, selectable by the user if needed for signaling while in the wilderness. Maybe you could have a barrel array that's all .22 LR for plinking, then take that off and put on the 9mm or .45 ACP. Short barrels for concealed carry, longer barrels with more rounds for police duty. Or a set of long barrels with heavy, hard-hitting handgun hunting rounds. A barrel assembly with any caliber you want, within reason, or a mixture of calibers manually selectable or programmable by the user, all of which fits the same grip. You could do all that and more with this technology.

Might even be economical to shoot, once you get past the cost of the barrels themselves. Perhaps the barrel assemblies could be reloaded by the user? Seems like all you would need to do is drop in a powder charge and press the projectile of choice to a very precise depth, drop in more powder and press in another projectile to a slightly, but precisely lesser depth, etc. The electronic ignition does away with the primer and the barrel assembly does away with the cartridge. Sounds quite a bit easier than current reloading procedures today (scrounging brass, sizing, trimming, cleaning primer pockets, primer in one end, power and bullet in the other, crimping, etc.) Reloading Metalstorm barrels might or might not be practical for technical reasons, but it sure sounds cool.

Whatever the future brings, I won't throw away my current gun collection (I still have a Graflex press and view film camera), but, I'll be open minded. And praying I can afford this stuff when it hits the market.

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

markand wrote:

Many years ago, pilots were aghast at the array of electronic flight instruments and gizmos that were showing up in airplane cockpits. Some pilots said they preferred the comfortable reliability of their own proven instruments: eyes, experience, judgment and seat of the pants guesswork. Would you be comfortable boarding an airliner if the pilot said he intended to ignore all that electronic junk and rely on his own instincts? No way. Flying "by the numbers" is essential for airliner safety. Heck, some military aircraft aren't even aerodynamically stable without their microprocessors (F-117, B-2 come to mind immediately.) If all the gizmos go, the pilot can only hope and pray he can pull the eject handle fast enough - before the plane flies itself apart.

It's not that simple. I don't want my pilot to be distracted by all the electronics, nor do I want him to be dependant on them.

If the device enhances his ability to fly, than okay.

And I don't want to fly with any pilot who can't get by with just the minimum required by the FAA: compass, altimeter, and airspeed indicator. Even a fuel guage can't be trusted in many planes; you know how much fuel you have by sticking a dipstick in the wing tank before engine start and then counting the minutes your engines have been running.

All the rest is nice to have.

With handguns, simpler is usually better as well. Gizmos are fine as long as the gun functions when they break down.

 

[Diesel-n-Lead]

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

markand wrote:

Many years ago, pilots were aghast at the array of electronic flight instruments and gizmos that were showing up in airplane cockpits. Some pilots said they preferred the comfortable reliability of their own proven instruments: eyes, experience, judgment and seat of the pants guesswork. Would you be comfortable boarding an airliner if the pilot said he intended to ignore all that electronic junk and rely on his own instincts? No way. Flying "by the numbers" is essential for airliner safety. Heck, some military aircraft aren't even aerodynamically stable without their microprocessors (F-117, B-2 come to mind immediately.) If all the gizmos go, the pilot can only hope and pray he can pull the eject handle fast enough - before the plane flies itself apart.

It's not that simple. I don't want my pilot to be distracted by all the electronics, nor do I want him to be dependant on them.

If the device enhances his ability to fly, than okay.

And I don't want to fly with any pilot who can't get by with just the minimum required by the FAA: compass, altimeter, and airspeed indicator. Even a fuel guage can't be trusted in many planes; you know how much fuel you have by sticking a dipstick in the wing tank before engine start and then counting the minutes your engines have been running.

All the rest is nice to have.

With handguns, simpler is usually better as well. Gizmos are fine as long as the gun functions when they break down.

Real men fly Stearmans