Build Your Own Gauss Pistol

BdosError writes "A Russion software developer has developed a homemade Gauss pistol. It's not very powerful yet, but as a proof of concept, it's interesting. Nice, non-chemical slugthrower that should appeal to fans of Science Fiction and related games, like Traveller and many others."

Comments

They don't exist?

[cyranoVR]

Using a series of magnets to accelerate a metal slug - it doesn't seem like it would be that hard to do. Right?

Also, aren't "Guass Guns" are more widely known via the games (both board- and PC-) BattleTech and Mechwarrior?

Re:They don't exist?

[SkArcher]

Gauss Rifles are from battletech.

Interestingly, I don't think the mass of the slug makes all that much difference to the eventual damage - force = mass * acceleration

So using lighter weights would be advantageous, up until the point where the projectile becomes too light to keep a decent trajectory in a cross wind.

And of course, there is the Particle Projection Cannon, with a charged particle instead of a magnetic slug...

Re:They don't exist?

[Mostly a lurker]

Evgenij Vasiljev does not claim this is a new concept. What he claims (and I do not know enough to validate this from his data) is that his prototype is the most efficient (by which I think he means velocity relative to power input) yet developed. It is dangerous to judge a book by its cover but, based on his site, it looks like a very interesting project.

Re:They don't exist?

[leshert]

So using lighter weights would be advantageous, up until the point where the projectile becomes too light to keep a decent trajectory in a cross wind.

Not just cross winds, but also deflection due to things like brush or light cover. Same reason my .243 is a poorer 'brush gun' than the .32 I've used on occasion. Smaller slug goes funny when it hits a leaf.

Re:They don't exist?

[SkArcher]

In theory it should take the same amount of energy to accelerate a helium nucleus (which is what I think they are described as being in the game) to 1/10th C as it takes to accelerate something 1,000 times heavier to 1/10,000 C, and the impact would have the same resultant force.

Mind you, that assumes perfect conductivity and no loss of kinetic energy to friction, but you get the idea.

Re:They don't exist?

[NeoSkandranon]

Interestingly, I don't think the mass of the slug makes all that much difference to the eventual damage - force = mass * acceleration

This does not quite translate into how a round will effect a target. Particularly a soft one. A light projectile travelling extremely fast will penetrate a human (for example, lets take the NATO 5.56x45mm round) and do significant damage, but won't always be lethal, because the high velocity causes it to penetrate and keep going, rather than transfer all its energy to the target. Compare to a 7.62mm round, which is traveling slower, heavier than a 5.56, but it does LOTs more damage

Re:They don't exist?

[Tassach]

The real-world lethality of a round of ammo is highly complex and often counterintuitive; not all of the mechanisms that increase or decrease lethality are well-understood.

While the kinetic energy (KE = 1/2 M V^2) and momentum (P = MV) have an undeniable relationship to lethality, they are demonstrably not the only factors, as there are real-world comparisons which show rounds with lower KE and momentum which are more lethal than ones with more KE and momentum.

Personally I shoot 9MM; my preferred ammo is 147gr@980fps, compared a more conventional loading of 125gr@1160fps. Real-world statistics show that the 147gr loadout has a slightly better track record of one-shot kills than the 125gr, even though the 147gr has roughly the same momentum and 20% less KE.

The M-16, firing the 5.56 nato round, has roughly 70% as much kinetic energy and momentum as the 7.62 Russian round used by the AK-47. Yet, pradoxically, battlefield statistics from show that the survival rate of people shot with 7.62Rus is significantly higher than that of people shot with 5.56NATO.

Carnival Rides

[double_plus_ungod]

Superman: The Escape uses magnetic propulsion and mag-brakes. nice to see the idea slimmed down.

all we need now are high-tech voltrons that fire the plastic pellets with a gauss gun. THAT would be cool.

Re:Hrmm

[SkArcher]

I'm wondering how the existing laws of various countries hold up against this weapon. Don't a lot of laws specify the weapon by the method the projectile is accelerated (i.e. in existing cases a chemical reaction)?

Does this weapon circumvent any laws against firearms?

Re:No sound!

[f97tosc]

While the parent post is disturbing, I will respond regarding this post. Sub-sonic ammo with silencers take care of most of that problem with traditional guns, while coil guns are tunable with the desired weight and size of the projectile used in them to keep the round sub-sonic

Of course it is possible to keep the bullet subsonic, but then your weapon is pretty useless as a sniper rifle.

There are very active research programs going on in a number of defense groups concerning rail guns at all scales from personal defense to large scale cannons.

Yes, and of these I think the cannon are promising but the personal not. For example, by putting the this into artillery on an aircraft carrier you can shoot further and more accurately and you get power from the nuclear plant.

But for a personal weapon, you have just exchanged a small case of gunpowder for a big battery, and you have gained...what? Not range and accuracy; these are limited by the markmanship of the user and not by the speed of the bullet.

Tor

Re:5mm bullet, 33 m/s muzzle velocity

[Xeger]

He's claiming that an air rifle pellet travels at ~250 m/s.

The problem is, pellets are light, hollow structures. An air gun pellet masses much less than a metal sphere. Low mass means less inertia, which means less hurtiness.

I don't know about air guns, but I know that an 8mm paintball travels at no greater than 100 m/s (and that's a very fast paintball indeed). Those things hurt! Furthermore, they hurt the most when they fail to break; their breaking gelatin shells dissipate some of the energy. The most painful paintballs are those frozen by sadistic fucks to deliberately cause more pain.

I imagine a metal BB hitting you travelling at 33 m/s would at the very least sting something fearsome.

I Still Prefer the Lepage Glue Gun

[good soldier svejk]

"What "Lepage gun?" Colonel Korn inquired with curiosity.

"The new three-hundred-and-forty-four-millimeter Lepage glue gun," Yossarian answered. "It glues a whole formation of planes together in mid-air."

- Catch-22, Joseph Heller

All kidding aside, the Germans did have Gauss gun research projects among their myriad secret weapons. Back then they called them "rail guns" as often as not. Not to be confused with these.

Re:Hrmm

[pete-classic]

I suggest you post a sign on your front lawn saying that you refuse to own guns

I'm not sure if you were inspired by this or if it is coincidence, but . . .

The JPFO used to make just that sign. They seem to have discontinued it. I can't understand why, it seems like a popular position.

If if is a coincidence I highly recommend you check them out. You don't have to be Jewish, you just have to support all of the Bill of Rights for all citizens.

Oh, and since I am posting anyway, the guy says the projectile takes on 1.5J of energy. For comparison, the rounds in the .44 Mag under my pillow (240 grain Hydra-shoks @ 1180 fps) have a muzzle energy of 2010J. Cool hack, but some miles to go between here and practical applicability.

-Peter

Re:No sound!

[IWannaBeAnAC]

Yes, I remember the story. It is interesting as a physical device; as an engineering task it is completely impossible. No one in their right mind would want that much Polonium-210 that close to their brain. The environmental damage alone from a dead soldier would be enough for an emergency session of the Geneva Convention to be convened, the first time one was fired :-)

Read Snow Crash, if you haven't allready

[el_munkie]

Of all the cool shit in that book, the second coolest was Reason, a nuclear-powered, multi-barreled railgun with badass computer targeting.

The coolest was the nuclear powered dogs, so I assume there will be a Slashdot article tomorrow on picking up strays, extracting their brains, and putting them in supersonic-capable carapaces.

Re:Hrmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if more (or more effective) gun control laws could have done more to fix that, then you would be back at square one.

You'd still have to get past the argument that removing the gun control laws might make considerably more bad things happen than have been.

Better, I think, admitting that freedoms come with associated risks and arguing that the freedom is worth it. You won't convince anyone but at least you won't be telling people they are irrational from an irrational standpoint.

Re:Hrmm

[Daemonik]

On one side you make a good point. Criminals will always have access to illegal weapons. That's a given. Death penalty laws don't keep people from killing each other either, should we get rid of those? Heck, jails don't stop criminals much, so let's tear those down too.

While we're at it, we can each huddle up our families into well armed little encampments, put out armed guards (trusted relatives only, and then only trust them as far as you can throw them) and we'll all just stare at each other while caressing all our nice shiny guns. Yeah, thats civilization.

Frankly, there are numerous people who would never consider commiting a crime who simply should not have access to a firearm.

If we dictate who can own and operate a car, under what conditions they can operate it and require them to pass a test demonstrating some aptitude with it, why is it such a leap to require similar checks on ownership of something designed to kill?

Crying that it's in the Constitution doesn't mean jack either. The Constitution is a collection of words, meant to be reinterpreted over time to suit the needs of the people now, not as we were 200 years ago.

Re:You got one thing right. This is a *WEAPON*.

[Kintanon]

You know what else is small, silent, and powerful enough to kill a man? A rock.
And I can fit a whole shitload of rocks in my pocket.

Watchout! I'm an arms dealer!

Kintanon

Re:Hrmm

[Oz_mjk]

A magentically powered gun? It gives new meaning to the phrase "silent but deadly". Really, this tech could mean alot for the army's covert ops stuff, but also for the better equipped criminals.

Re:Hrmm

[Eskarel]

Yes and of course we all know that none of those people could possibly have been wrong. Oh wait, these are the same founding fathers who believed that black people only counted as 2/3's of a person and were so afraid of actually giving electoral power to the rabble that they created an electoral college which could ignore their wishes. Jefferson in particular was a bit of a nut job and if we're going to follow his wishes we'd better all move onto 40 acre farms and live the isolated rural lifestyle.

As for the 18th Century criminologists, I've read some really fun stuff from 19th Century criminologists, stuff which associates certain physical features with propensity for criminal acts.

I'm not saying that the great majority of what the founding fathers believed wasn't reasonably good, I'm merely saying that not everything they believed was right.

It is also a well known fact that when they ratified the constitution most of its authors believed it would be a temporary document as had been the articles of confederation not something which would last 200 years, and even then they were smart enough to put in the ability to change it.

Guns are a problem, perhaps making them all together illegal is going overboard, I've even known a few people who were responsible enough about firearms that I didn't feel totally uncomfortable with them owing them, but it's not unreasonable to require some sort of training or control before you purchase a gun. No we will probably never stop actual criminals from obtaining guns and using them to muder people, but maybe we can stop idiots from accidentally shooting themselves or others and maybe we can cut down on those random acts of gun violence. Even if I can't know that no one is going to shoot me, I'd like to know that if I accidentally piss somone off they're not going to go temporarily insane and shoot me, we don't need that kind of security.

Even more fun!!! Non-weapon Phaser!

[SharpFang]

go.to/phaser This non-military device easy to build at home will provide you with a lot of pleasure! Literally!

Less lethal is a good thing

[Nf1nk]

Less lethal is a good thing and not from a peace-nic humanitarian view point.
A dead soldier elemenates one soldier and needs no assistance. This can cause his compatriots to fight harder.
While a wounded solier needs assistance of two or more soldiers and his screams of agony will dihearten his allies.
Thus:
dead lose one soldier
wounded lose three or more

Clearly wounding your enemies is more effective than killing

Re:when i hear the word gun, i reach for my cultur

[NerveGas]

The answer is extremely simple, really.

In Switzerland, pretty much *everyone* has a firearm. Now, think to yourself: Are you going to cause trouble in a society like that? You certainly wouldn't think of sticking up that cafe, now would you?

Now, move your thoughts to America. The gun laws serve only to take guns away from honest citizens, while doing very little to keep them away from criminals. Think about it: You're a criminal, you've got your gun. You know that the honest folks don't. Now how scared are you of sticking up a cafe?

There are still places where guns are common-place. Guess what! Things go along without problems.

I've also lived in countries where guns were extremely difficult to come by - if the laws didn't stop you, the economics of the situation probably would. Guess what! The murder rate was astronomical compared to the United States. Serial killings, mass killings, murder/suicides, family dispute killings, they all happened - and they happened a lot. Just because a gun isn't available doesn't change a person's predisposition to violence.

Re:when i hear the word gun, i reach for my cultur

[hughk]

In Switzerland, pretty much *everyone* has a firearm.

They are usually military rifles because almost every adult male is serving in the militia.

I have no problem with everyone having a gun who is properly trained and on a regular basis.