EPTthis could be a really good advantage for the country which owns it, but could also be incredibly bad if this technology became widespread.
eitherway it is interesting.
Metal Storm, new weapon technology
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
[angst]chraej
1445 Posts
this could be a really good advantage for the country which owns it, but could also be incredibly bad if this technology became widespread. eitherway it is interesting. | ||
|
SChasu
United States1505 Posts
| ||
|
Kaolla
China2999 Posts
| ||
|
[angst]chraej
1445 Posts
| ||
|
Regulator
60 Posts
| ||
|
Ethenielle
Norway1006 Posts
| ||
Last Romantic
United States20661 Posts
You could create a good anti-missile defense with such technology, unlike USA's current missile to missile, which works like 0.1% of the time. But if everyone and his kid brother somehow got hands on this gun... street fighting would become insane. Also, probably quite expensive to buy that much ammunition. | ||
|
Regulator
60 Posts
| ||
|
ieatkids5
United States4628 Posts
| ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
 I don't think this would this would practically work out as an anti-missle defense. I don't understand where the energy is coming from. It looks like it would need a lot... | ||
|
jtan
Sweden5891 Posts
Rather life saving for someone else | ||
|
Last Romantic
United States20661 Posts
On October 20 2006 12:34 Servolisk wrote: Ugh I don't think this would this would practically work out as an anti-missle defense. I don't understand where the energy is coming from. It looks like it would need a lot... Yeah, I think it would... I always thought this system was magnetic [there was news about it awhile ago] but apparently it's electronic? rather strange. | ||
|
Random()
Kyrgyz Republic1462 Posts
Just simple math: standard 9 mm pistol round weighs about 8 grams. When fired at 350 m/s, such round creates a 2,8 kg*m/s recoil impulse. So handling it is equal to stopping a 1 kg brick someone thrown at you, no big deal. But if it fires 16000 such rounds per minute, the recoil \"brick\" will weigh 250 kilos. In other words, if you weigh 70kg, in one second your body will receive enough impulse to achieve a speed of 10 m/s, or 36 km/h. | ||
|
Random()
Kyrgyz Republic1462 Posts
On October 20 2006 12:48 penitent exile wrote: [removed quote within quote] Yeah, I think it would... I always thought this system was magnetic [there was news about it awhile ago] but apparently it's electronic? rather strange. I think they talk not about a magnetically driven bullet (aka railgun), but rather a usual chemically powered bullet, but instead of hitting it to make the gunpowder explode they ignite it electrically, thus "no moving parts" and "reliability", as if electrical ignition can't fail. | ||
|
Aukai
United States1183 Posts
| ||
IntoTheWow
is awesome32275 Posts
Imagine counter strike with a rapid fire weapon like this. Its like a hax, =[. | ||
|
SCNewb
Canada2210 Posts
looks great too........definitely deadly in the wrong hands though | ||
|
DarK]N[exuS
China1441 Posts
On October 20 2006 12:59 Random() wrote: Sounds pretty much like bullshit to me. 16000 RPM (or did he even say RPS)? Imagine how much recoil and heat such rate of fire would generate, it would be totally useless for handguns (I suppose that recoil is about the only thing limiting handgun firepower, there is no technological problems of creating ultra-powerful handguns except that the one who uses it would be decimated, such as minigun), and even mounted on a superheavy stationary turret it\'ll cause enormous barrel wear. Electric triggering is also not a new concept, it has been used in conjuction with caseless ammunition in projects such as H&K G11. Just simple math: standard 9 mm pistol round weighs about 8 grams. When fired at 350 m/s, such round creates a 2,8 kg*m/s recoil impulse. So handling it is equal to stopping a 1 kg brick someone thrown at you, no big deal. But if it fires 16000 such rounds per minute, the recoil \"brick\" will weigh 250 kilos. In other words, if you weigh 70kg, in one second your body will receive enough impulse to achieve a speed of 10 m/s, or 36 km/h. Um dude, 16000 out of a CANNON with like 16 barrels and multiple barrels within barrels. Like they said AND showed. | ||
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
| ||
|
ChoboCop
United States954 Posts
On October 20 2006 12:59 Random() wrote: Sounds pretty much like bullshit to me. 16000 RPM (or did he even say RPS)? Imagine how much recoil and heat such rate of fire would generate, it would be totally useless for handguns (I suppose that recoil is about the only thing limiting handgun firepower, there is no technological problems of creating ultra-powerful handguns except that the one who uses it would be decimated, such as minigun), and even mounted on a superheavy stationary turret it\'ll cause enormous barrel wear. Electric triggering is also not a new concept, it has been used in conjuction with caseless ammunition in projects such as H&K G11. Just simple math: standard 9 mm pistol round weighs about 8 grams. When fired at 350 m/s, such round creates a 2,8 kg*m/s recoil impulse. So handling it is equal to stopping a 1 kg brick someone thrown at you, no big deal. But if it fires 16000 such rounds per minute, the recoil \"brick\" will weigh 250 kilos. In other words, if you weigh 70kg, in one second your body will receive enough impulse to achieve a speed of 10 m/s, or 36 km/h. Impressive analysis. Are you a weapons/physics engineer?  | ||
|
Random()
Kyrgyz Republic1462 Posts
On October 20 2006 13:22 DarK]N[exuS wrote: [removed quote within quote] Um dude, 16000 out of a CANNON with like 16 barrels and multiple barrels within barrels. Like they said AND showed. They showed a pistol-like something as well. | ||
|
jchanhm
Canada150 Posts
| ||
|
EAGER-beaver
Canada2799 Posts
| ||
|
Random()
Kyrgyz Republic1462 Posts
On October 20 2006 13:25 ChoboCop wrote: [removed quote within quote] Impressive analysis. Are you a weapons/physics engineer? I suck at physics horribly... so my numbers should be wrong  ) | ||
|
Random()
Kyrgyz Republic1462 Posts
I'd rather hire 1000 people and gave them Kalashinkovs if I'd like to make a metal storm  | ||
|
HungerForMore
Afghanistan420 Posts
| ||
|
RaiZ
2813 Posts
Seriously why are we in AWE or something just because of this sh1t ? I really want to burn those ppl who made this weapon for sure. | ||
|
keke
Canada186 Posts
| ||
|
SuperJongMan
Jamaica11586 Posts
On October 20 2006 13:16 IntoTheWow wrote: I dont like this idea, it will fuck up FPS games. Imagine counter strike with a rapid fire weapon like this. Its like a hax, =[. Ahahaha I know right? Isn't it about time mankind just developed robots to fight wars for us? I want my own robot suit. It would be soooo cool. We have lasers, now we have electronic guns, we have robots... we can make robot suits... let's fuckin merge the technology already. kkadem | ||
|
~OpZ~
United States3652 Posts
| ||
|
Alborz
Canada1551 Posts
bullet clouds | ||
|
[angst]chraej
1445 Posts
On October 20 2006 13:59 RaiZ wrote: Another way to have more wars... How long will they learn that, everytime they make new weapon for "defense purpose" or some another bullshit, it will rather make some deadly human's weapon ? Seriously why are we in AWE or something just because of this sh1t ? I really want to burn those ppl who made this weapon for sure. haha, advanced technology is very interesting. so...if the weapon shot fire it would be ok? How does you wanting to injure someone for creating a weapon (presumably for injuring others) make sense? | ||
|
CuddlyCuteKitten
Sweden2638 Posts
Why? Well, first of all it costs a lot more than conventional weapons. You can't reload without switching a barrel or even the entire gun The rate of fire means more ammo consumtion so you'll have to carry a lot more shit around. The way I see it is that this system is good for one thing and that is when you have to kill something as fast as you possibly can, which as high probability as possible, cost is not an issue and you only have to do it once. In other words when a cruise missile is about to hit your carrier. | ||
|
[angst]chraej
1445 Posts
On October 20 2006 14:57 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: It's really good for what it does but it has little practical use. Why? Well, first of all it costs a lot more than conventional weapons. You can't reload without switching a barrel or even the entire gun The rate of fire means more ammo consumtion so you'll have to carry a lot more shit around. The way I see it is that this system is good for one thing and that is when you have to kill something as fast as you possibly can, which as high probability as possible, cost is not an issue and you only have to do it once. In other words when a cruise missile is about to hit your carrier. i agree, i was curious as to why they invented a one shot weapon and what they plan on doing with it, besides possible flak v missle. Perhaps they have another trick up their sleeves. | ||
|
ReTr0[p.S]
Argentina1590 Posts
I want to know how exactly this thing works, to see whether or not they are based on his experiments. | ||
Xeofreestyler
Belgium6771 Posts
| ||
|
beef_jerky
52 Posts
| ||
|
Newbistic
China2912 Posts
They had a record in Guiness for fastest firing weapon, it was a monstrosity with 36 barrels achieving 1,000,000+ rounds per minute... Drown a tank with bullets :o | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
"But then I considered: well, what is the point of having guns at all anyways? To kill people. Well, it's not like this gun will kill people "more dead" than any other gun. It just does it's job better than any other gun currently manufactured. And I suppose that, from a military viewpoint, you realistically must be concerned with the most efficient way to eliminate your enemies. So this is great for the military. But iono, it still makes me uneasy when they sensationalize the newest most effective ways to kill peeps. If you've ever flipped through a "Soldier of Fortune" mag, you'll know what I mean. Fucking nutjobs. | ||
|
Dexxus
United States329 Posts
| ||
|
Last.Midnight
Australia903 Posts
| ||
|
itzme_petey
United States1400 Posts
On October 22 2006 01:46 Last.Midnight wrote: It's a good thing they're workin' on this shit instead of curing AIDS / Cancer. yea because its either metalstorm or AIDS. Theres just no way people can work on both. Theres just not enough money floating around. I mean, im sure they litterally STOPPED AIDS research to build those guns. -_- what a dilema | ||
|
lololol
5198 Posts
On October 22 2006 01:59 itzme_petey wrote: [removed quote within quote] yea because its either metalstorm or AIDS. Theres just no way people can work on both. Theres just not enough money floating around. I mean, im sure they litterally STOPPED AIDS research to build those guns. -_- what a dilema Yeah, there are enough money around for everything, there's no such thing as underdeveloped countries or starvation in Africa! I'm pretty sure there's money for everything and they should spend more on weapon research. These money can always have a better use, than weapon research, always! | ||
|
L!MP
Australia2067 Posts
| ||
|
useLess
United States4781 Posts
Machine guns is to World War I as Metal Storm is to now. | ||
|
itzme_petey
United States1400 Posts
On October 22 2006 02:10 lololol wrote: [removed quote within quote] Yeah, there are enough money around for everything, there's no such thing as underdeveloped countries or starvation in Africa! I'm pretty sure there's money for everything and they should spend more on weapon research. These money can always have a better use, than weapon research, always! Are we talking about the same country? The USA has ALOT of money and its spread among alot of different programs. So since there is "media" focus on a certain subject doesnt mean that other projects are forgotten. | ||
|
Last.Midnight
Australia903 Posts
| ||
|
a-game
Canada5085 Posts
| ||
|
LazySCV
United States2942 Posts
| ||
|
coolio
Finland196 Posts
that ´just sounds like a waste of bullets, they should just try to figure out anti-matter and make a weapon out of that... or a battlecruiser | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On October 22 2006 04:29 Last.Midnight wrote: My point was, any money or time spent on weapons is money and time wasted. Better weapon technology = fewer casualties for that country. Sparing the lives of a country's citizens is a waste of time? | ||
|
JacobDaKung
Sweden132 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28689 Posts
On October 20 2006 13:20 StarcraftNewb wrote: wow..........I'm in awe looks great too........definitely deadly in the wrong hands though sucks how it will only be held by the wrong hands | ||
|
lawl mart
United States1289 Posts
gosu | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28689 Posts
On October 22 2006 06:25 BlackJack wrote: [removed quote within quote] Better weapon technology = fewer casualties for that country. Sparing the lives of a country's citizens is a waste of time? isnt not going to war a better way to spare lives tho? | ||
|
Dametri
United States726 Posts
On October 22 2006 06:37 Liquid`Drone wrote: [removed quote within quote] isnt not going to war a better way to spare lives tho? Good luck with that | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On October 22 2006 06:37 Liquid`Drone wrote: [removed quote within quote] isnt not going to war a better way to spare lives tho? I suppose that argument could be made. It just wouldn't be made by the Jews in Nazi Germany, the Blacks in colonial America, the Kurds in Iraq, the Tutsis in Rwanda and so on. In my opinion, investing in weapons techonology prevents war. There has been no shortage of evil dictators over the past 50 years. If not for the threat of being blasted into the stone age by the US/NATO would they just be sitting idle? If all the democratic/developed nations are armed with swords and crossbows, I don't think they will maintain their independence very long. From the other side -- If North Korea's investment in nuclear techonology pays off, will war with them be more likely or less likely? | ||
|
NoName
United States1558 Posts
But rate of fire is not such a great selling point for personal weapon. There's a reason why M-16s are only shot in bursts -- if everyone was shooting full auto everytime, the ammo would just get too expensive, run out too quickly, and accuracy goes down. The military and police want their people to be disciplined when firing their weapons, and rather them hit their targets with less amount of shots fired. | ||
|
aseq
Netherlands3981 Posts
On October 20 2006 14:48 [angst]chraej wrote: [removed quote within quote] haha, advanced technology is very interesting. so...if the weapon shot fire it would be ok? How does you wanting to injure someone for creating a weapon (presumably for injuring others) make sense? Hippy talk. In the middle ages they chopped a hand off someone who committed burglary, or an and it worked. If you're against excessive violence, you don't have to refrain from any type of violence. I'm against wars and killing people, but there's nothing wrong with some forms of corporal punishment (slapping a kid on their hand when they're repeatingly doing something that's not allowed is one example). By just using violence to those 100 weapons manufacturers you might save more lives elsewhere. But i don't think this type of gun will revolutionize anything. It may take the reliability from 95% to 99%, and i don't really see the point of multiple bullets shot at the same spot when 1 already kills. | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On October 22 2006 06:37 Liquid`Drone wrote: [removed quote within quote] isnt not going to war a better way to spare lives tho? people have been going to war since they had nothing but sticks and rocks to fight with. technology does not cause war, it prevents or slows it. now that everyone knows if there is a big enough conflict everyone will get whiped off the face of the earth by nukes it takes alot more to provoke such a fight. | ||
|
lololol
5198 Posts
On October 22 2006 03:45 itzme_petey wrote: [removed quote within quote] Are we talking about the same country? The USA has ALOT of money and its spread among alot of different programs. So since there is "media" focus on a certain subject doesnt mean that other projects are forgotten. There is a clear difference for spending 1 dollar on AIDS research and 2 dollars on AIDS research, simple enough? I did NOT write they do not spend money on research to cure AIDS or anything like that, so wtf are you writing about? | ||
|
Dexxus
United States329 Posts
| ||
|
yare
507 Posts
What causes environmental damage? People. What kills people? More people. Here in America we just arrived at an estimated population of 300 million. I must drive for 1.3 hours for my university, and 1 hour for my work. If there were less people in my way these times could be reduced. I know some people are turned against death as the ultimate evil, but it is a process that either evolved or was granted to people during creation. As far as disease in Africa, I agree it is a tragic time, but should I be accountable for the 3rd or 4th generation of ignorance to a disease? Edit: There's a saying "give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day, but teach a man to fish and he can eat for his life time." For my entire life I have lived with ads on my television about feeding starving Africans. At what point do Africans (I know there are africans not in such bad situations, but the starving Aids infested I am talking about) start to fish for themselves, proverbially speaking? I'm not much into socialisim, so yes my arguments are biased to a great extent. I guess my main point is, is it better to have periodic wars that redefine borders control populations and create a heirarchy of power or to live a pacifist life and race head long into what ever hell to which we are currently headed in the world? Even if I'm one to meet my inevitable death in war, I'd be more secure than living in fear, so I will choose the former. | ||
|
oddeye
Canada716 Posts
On October 20 2006 13:16 IntoTheWow wrote: I dont like this idea, it will fuck up FPS games. Imagine counter strike with a rapid fire weapon like this. Its like a hax, =[. nah in CS spraying is overly nerfed anyway | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
| ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28689 Posts
On October 22 2006 08:11 IdrA wrote: [removed quote within quote] people have been going to war since they had nothing but sticks and rocks to fight with. technology does not cause war, it prevents or slows it. now that everyone knows if there is a big enough conflict everyone will get whiped off the face of the earth by nukes it takes alot more to provoke such a fight. an educated population prevents war to an even larger degree than improved technology does I mean usa went to war BECAUSE another country supposedly had weapons capable of mass destruction, and with the help of an ignorant population although yes if every country has the ability to nuke every other country the whole mutually assured destruction makes countries far, far less likely to wage war against eachother, at the same time it makes the inevitable conflict all the more destructive. | ||
|
sith
United States2474 Posts
| ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
and the technological progression of military weapons is hard to stop because no one wants to take the initiative. everyone always wants everyone else to disarm or stop research first, because whoever does it first leaves their asses hanging out unprotected. | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On October 22 2006 11:23 yare wrote: As far as disease in Africa, I agree it is a tragic time, but should I be accountable for the 3rd or 4th generation of ignorance to a disease? Edit: There's a saying "give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day, but teach a man to fish and he can eat for his life time." For my entire life I have lived with ads on my television about feeding starving Africans. At what point do Africans (I know there are africans not in such bad situations, but the starving Aids infested I am talking about) start to fish for themselves, proverbially speaking? assuming medication = fish in your analogy, because they simply do not have the means to do so. to fish you need a stick and a string. its not quite so simple to make aids medication. | ||
|
decafchicken
United States20026 Posts
Why are dying africans our problem? | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
| ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28689 Posts
not only our fault of course but we certainly didnt do enough to help them get out of a situation we created which is hard to get out of on your own not to mention we don't lose anything from helping them as we can help withough making much of a dent at all in our own wealth | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On October 22 2006 16:32 IdrA wrote: [removed quote within quote] assuming medication = fish in your analogy, because they simply do not have the means to do so. to fish you need a stick and a string. its not quite so simple to make aids medication. He was talking about preventing AIDS, not treating it "not to mention we don't lose anything from helping them as we can help withough making much of a dent at all in our own wealth" $2.3 trillion has already went into developing countries. Hard to tell how much progess has been made | ||
|
miNi
Korea (South)2010 Posts
On October 22 2006 19:02 BlackJack wrote: I'm sure without that $2.3 Trillion, 2.3 million people won't be alive now.$2.3 trillion has already went into developing countries. Hard to tell how much progess has been made | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28689 Posts
| ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28689 Posts
norway could easily give 2% of our BNP without it affecting us much at all that being said though very, very many early humanitarian projects were very costly without accomplishing anything. however nowadays, while theres still a lot of dead money being given, there are many extremely useful projects as well. | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
| ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28689 Posts
| ||
|
Lemonwalrus
United States5465 Posts
On October 22 2006 07:53 aseq wrote: [removed quote within quote] By just using violence to those 100 weapons manufacturers you might save more lives elsewhere. Killing those researchers wouldn't change anything. More would be trained to replace them, and possibly taken away from research that is more beneficial to the world as a whole. You are getting mad at the wrong people. These people design the weapons because they want to put food on their table. The government makes war, so the government is who you have a problem with, and nobody else. (I'm not calling for Bush's assassination, but our government should be fighting for our best interests, and it clearly is not (approval rating below 50%...)) EDIT:Just so you know, I realize you are Dutch, but the point can be translated to any nation/conflict that isn't supported by the nation's citizens. | ||
|
Laverick
Canada123 Posts
Or if military technology is really so important then the money should have been put towards purely defensive abilities, none of these offensive weapons acting on defense. We don't need bullets to stop missiles, we need electrostatic shields to stop missiles. Keep in mind this is coming from a supporter of the Armed Forces, not a peace protestor. | ||
|
baal
10541 Posts
First of all the magazine capacity blows since all the bullets are lined up in the barrel, second the accurancy would blow since the more a bullet travels in the barrel the more acurate it will be, since the first bullets practically dont trave at all in the barrel they would be as inacurate as as hell. Also i didnt see any kind of option to stop the shooting i mean, you have ur gun, and BAM... 1 milisecond and you fired all your bullets at one single point? thats not very useful | ||
|
Aukai
United States1183 Posts
| ||
|
pyrogenetix
China5095 Posts
| ||
|
baal
10541 Posts
On November 22 2006 03:39 Aukai wrote: You were the last person I expected to revive this after a month god dammnit... sorry i quickly read Oct 22 and confused it with Nov 22 my bad :< | ||
|
Aukai
United States1183 Posts
| ||
| ||
