We really cant design a better gun?
- Thread starter Lavid2002
- Start date
Ah yes but if you keep up with the current unclassified tech on long range weaponized lazers and telescopes you would know about computer controled variable geometry lenses, to counteract atmospheric distortions. Then you have to look into the targeting and guidance of said sytems.
Plenty more variable than you take away.
"cylindrical" powders usually have a hole thorough the center (surface area). Therefore, in comparison to spherical powder, the surface area of the spherical powder becomes smaller as the powder burns while the surface area of the hollow tube (stick) powders remains constant(except for the ends of the cylinder), until consumed. And, as you have observed, flake powder is almost all surface (burns very quickly).
Ladies and gentlemen, that there is me to a tee! I used to scoff at folks who said, "Ya goober, sooner or later you're going to have to accept change!" OK, maybe I do... but not without being dragged to it whilest kicking and screaming to the upmost of my feeble ability!
Hmm, anybody thought about "AIR"?
Lasers and plasma rifles are two different things. Lasers against people are are a poor choice for the reasons listed above.
Add to that you still have hit hit what you are are aiming at. Just because you have a plasma rifle, you still have to locate your target, aim, and be able to land the shot.
cannonfire
New member
Not my "plasma" rifle... It locates my enemy all by its self... you haven't heard of it? Its called the AETS, Automatic Enemy Tracking System. Ya, I can shoot at the ground or behind me and my plasma ray still hits the target.... Soon they are coming out with the UAETS.. the Ultimate Automatic Enemy Tracking System, it just has extremely long distance, so now I will be able to sit on my couch and hit my target around the world.
sc928porsche
New member
Well, no one has mentioned the rail gun yet. It could turn out to be a nice rifle once they are able to get the thing down to a usable size.
But isn't the rail gun very hard on materials too? I've heard they need to rebuild that thing after every ten shots or so. And the energy required for one shot....well, the only rail gun in service I know of is mounted on a battle ship.
IMO gunpowder and bullets work pretty well. If you are good you can nail asses at over 1 mile away. For my part, I am satisfied with the current weapons.
IMO gunpowder and bullets work pretty well. If you are good you can nail asses at over 1 mile away. For my part, I am satisfied with the current weapons.
themusgrat
New member
I hope that we never get past powder based guns. The second we start getting into lasers and other high tech stuff that leaves no bullet, no residue, no brass, then it becomes very easy for people to go out and kill each other without leaving a trace.
The modern bullet is absolutely fine for killing game as well as people, and there is absolutely no reason for anyone to need more than that.
The modern bullet is absolutely fine for killing game as well as people, and there is absolutely no reason for anyone to need more than that.
Another MOJOR problem is the issue with powering the darn thing. Gunpowder stores a LOT of energy in a stable form in a small space.
Energy based weapons don't have that easy power source. A 40 watt laser doesn't weight too much, but the batteries or generator required to fire it are going to flatten anything that tries to carry it. Add in the cooling requirements and it gets even worse.
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
Guys, at the limit of unmagnified sight(ironsights and normal ACOG issued to military), lasers are pretty simple to aim and atmospheric interference isn't that bad.
Range of current issue rifles is even less.
You could probably home load caseless ammo. They could probably make a form for it or something....
"Etronx system"<-Wasn't reliability terrible. If they had kept up research full bore like car companies sort of have the last ten years and crammed it down our throats we would all be better off. Just like electric hybrids...
Range of current issue rifles is even less.
You could probably home load caseless ammo. They could probably make a form for it or something....
"Etronx system"<-Wasn't reliability terrible. If they had kept up research full bore like car companies sort of have the last ten years and crammed it down our throats we would all be better off. Just like electric hybrids...
sc928porsche
New member
A rail gun is operated by electromagnets. They pull the bullet through the barrel. In theory, if strong enough, it could propell a projectile at 180,000 miles per second. Of course It would have to be about the size of large particle accelerator, not mention the power plant it would take to operate it.
Perhaps someday they will have the technology to make it much smaller to perform at todays modern rifle balistics.
Perhaps someday they will have the technology to make it much smaller to perform at todays modern rifle balistics.
Suwannee Tim
New member
There are two obstacles standing in the way of progress beyond smokeless powder. Chemistry and physics. We need the Congress to pass a law repealing the laws of chemistry and physics. Then, we wouldn't need old technology coal fired power plants to heat and light our homes. Just put a solar cell on the roof and a car battery in the basement, problem solved. Heck, why stop there? We could pass laws ending scarcity so no one would ever need or want anything they could not have. Then we could eliminate hate, envy and lust. We would have no crime, no war, no need for guns.
Cars use a liquid fuel metered into each cylinder before each power stroke. It is safe, and efficient. Its not like the cylinder needs cleaning. The residue left behind by the liquid combustible *Gasoline in this instance* doesn't NEED cleaning. Its not like every time you drive you pop the head off and scrub you're cylinders : D
If I knew enough about chemistry I think I could engineer a better firearm. I spend a fair amount of time thinking about it.
If I knew enough about chemistry I think I could engineer a better firearm. I spend a fair amount of time thinking about it.
Your timeline leaves out the invention that made metallic cartridges possible, the invention of the percussion cap around 1830 made flintlocks obsolete almost overnight and made it possible to have wars in the rain.
One of the limits to high velocity is the weight of the gunpowder. The powder not only has to accelerate the bullet but also the gases behind the bullet and that gas weighs exactly as much as the powder that generated it.
With black powder loads, you can get velocities of about 2500 fps before the powder charge starts to outweigh the bullet. Add more powder and the powder does more work accelerating its own gases than it delivers to the bullet and this makes it hard to go past this speed.
With smokeless powder, the powder starts outweighing the bullet at around 4000 fps. Velocities higher than that means out of proportion pressure increases and rapid throat erosion.
If there is a breakthrough, it will involve a powder that generates gases lighter than a mixture of CO2, H2O, and N2. The ideal gunpowder would turn into hydrogen gas when it burned.
Indeed, NASA did use hydrogen to propel projectiles at speeds up to 30,000 fps in their meteorite impact simulating gun. The hydrogen gas was compressed by a piston propelled by an explosive charge and the gun fired into a target chamber that was completely evacuated of air. At this velocity, air in the barrel acts as a barrel obstruction.
deadcoyote
New member
Haven't you seen those new uppers for AR-15's? They fire a long dart propelled by high tension string, no residue at all. I heard if you buy a half dozen they thrown in a ninja mask with your order!
True. But my point still stands: development of firearms has, historically, been a somewhat slow process. The status quo will often remain unchanged for centuries until someone makes a breakthrough that allows significant progress to be made. Historically, it seems that 100 to 200 years is about average from one major advance to another. It's been ~160 years since the metallic cartridge, ~180 or so since the percussion cap, and only a 130 or so since automatics came into play, and only 66 years since the invention of the assault rifle.
We may be over-due for another advance, or we may not. We could still be using the ancestors of the modern M16 in 2100. Right now, we have some significant physical and chemical problems to overcome, many have already been discussed, before we see something better.