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

Hrmm

[Vokbain]

Today must be 'dangerous projects' day on slashdot.

I didn't see any expense information on his site. I wonder how much it costs to build one of those.

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:Hrmm

[Vokbain]

I don't think they count as firearms unless they have some kind of chemical propellant.

I could be wrong though, and usually am.

Re:Hrmm

[pi_rules]

There are a myriad of firearm laws. Last I knew it was darned near 22,000 nationwide. It's a mess. Sure has done a heck of a lot to keep illegal guns off the street though. As a law abiding citizen I'm glad to know that I can't buy the same kind of firearms that my coke dealing cousin can illegally. Makes me feel real damn safe at night.

Ranting aside, laws generally apply to chemically propelled weapons. That leaves BB and pellet guns out of the regulations. The magnetic weapons are still slow enough and bulky enough that they're not under regulation yet. As soon as somebody gets one that works well and starts selling it though you can bet stink will hit the fan though.

While I'm not a fan of what he did Timothy McVeigh did build a weapon of sorts that was somewhat like a shotgun but fired a modified flare that would explode. It was meant to take down helicopters. The ATF went after him for a bit on this one, or at least confronted him I guess, even though it was prefectly legal to sell. Couldn't sell the explosive flares but empties with instructions on how to make shells were illegal.

"Shall not infringe" sure has come to mean "shall not entirely infringe" over the years.

Yes I'm a pro-2nd ammendment person. If you have a problem with that I suggest you post a sign on your front lawn saying that you refuse to own guns if you think that will make the world a safer place.

Re:Hrmm

[josh crawley]

Thank you for officially beginning the obligatory Second Amendment flame-war. I will counter by making the obligatory mention of Columbine. "Columbine". Your turn.

Re:Hrmm

[ljavelin]

I'm not against guns... I'm pro-gun. I don't have a thing against them. They're nice and usually made of metal and plastic.

But I am against nuts with guns. Yep, I'm against it.

If you're for nuts with guns, I suggest you put a sign on your lawn that says "I think all nuts should own guns!"

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:Hrmm

[Vokbain]

Americans are all crazy.

Re:Hrmm

[pete-classic]

The guns used by those kids were:

1. Illegally purchased (They were purchased by someone who could purchase them legally, but with the intent to illegally provide them to minors, which makes the act of purchasing them illegal.)

2. Illegally owned (In the state of Colorado handguns may only be owned by persons 21 and older.)

3. Illegally possessed (In the state of Colorado it is illegal for a person under 21 to possess a handgun without supervision.)

4. Illegally carried (Carry of a concealed handgun is only allowed by permit.)

5. Illegally possessed (It is illegal for non-LEOs to possess a firearm on public school property without a concealed carry permit. Yes, this makes it "doubly" illegal for them to have had them.)

6. Illegally carried (It is illegal to carry a concealed firearm on school property without a permit . . . ditto above.)

So, discounting all the petty things (like illegally possessing handgun ammo, etc) the young lady and boys involved broke no fewer than SIX "gun control" laws before a single shot was fired.

Any insinuation that this situation would have somehow been improved by more "gun control" laws (aka further erosion of the second civil liberty enumerated in the Bill of Rights) amounts to strong evidence of a hopelessly irrational mind.

-Peter

Re:Hrmm

[pi_rules]

But I am against nuts with guns. Yep, I'm against it.

If you're for nuts with guns, I suggest you put a sign on your lawn that says "I think all nuts should own guns!"

I don't think you actually read my post entirely. Please note the opening where I mention my gun-toting drug dealing cousin (with a felony!) has access to weapons easier than I do as a law abiding citizen.

He shot two men two months ago after a drug deal went bad.

Nuts do own guns, illegally. There is nothing I can realistically do to stop them from having them. However by being armed I can protect myself and those around me. Because I'm armed I raise the probability of a nut-job encountering an armed citizen when they want to commit armed robbery -- and they begin to think twice. If they knew every damned person in the city had a gun on them and that 99% of them were law abiding peaceful people do you really think they'd pull half the crap they do?

You don't have to thank me for protecting your freedom and livelyhood. I get enough satisfaction out of knowing that I'm doing my part while you whine and moan about it.

Re:Hrmm

[Skjellifetti]

The problem with most 2nd Amendment folks is that they forget that it starts "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." and think that the Amendment implies that gov't cannot regulate anything about gun ownership.

2nd Amendment fanatics typically do not know their history very well. The vast majority of citizens in Colonial America did not own guns. Guns were hand made and quite expensive at the time of the American Revolution. As a result, all of the colonies were faced with critical shortages of arms and ammunition during the first years of the war. Also, the Continental Army came very, very close to a coup d'etat after the war when the Continental Congress could not pay the officers and men what they were owed for their service. It was averted at the last moment by Washington who gave a tearful address to the officers begging them not to. These experiences with a lack of preparation for defense and distrust of a standing army led the feds to pass the 2nd Amendment in 1791 and The Militia Act of 1792 which required all able bodied men, 18-45, to serve in their local militia and provide their own weapons and equipment. The problem with the act was that most people do not want to be forced to serve in an army of any kind and by the 1830s, most people were regularly dodging the requirement. Gun ownership in America really only got started after the Civil War when many returning soldiers were allowed to take their guns home with them. It was at this point that the myth that America had always been defended by heavily armed individual citizens began. The myth was eventually perverted into the notion that the 2nd Amendment was written as a protection for individuals and not an attempt to create a gov't regulated alternative to a standing army.

Re:Hrmm

[Dimensio]

Would you mind pointing out what in the second amendment allows the government to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms? Be specific, and keep in mind that the amendment is one entire word, but there are no qualifiers on the "right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", at least none immediately obvious.

Re:Hrmm

[AceMarkE]

Only after the Civil War? Sorry, wrong. That's part of what Michael Bellisles tried to claim in his book "Arming America". See the archives of Clayton Cramer's blog for research showing that American gun ownership was quite common well before the Revolutionary War (Cramer has dug through numerous archives of town records, all of which prove his point). In particular, see here, here, and here
Mark Erikson

Re:Hrmm

[pi_rules]

The problem with most 2nd Amendment folks is that they forget that it starts "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." and think that the Amendment implies that gov't cannot regulate anything about gun ownership.

I'm only going to concentrate on this part of your post as the rest goes into what are very well factual things but have absolutely no bearing on the intention of the 2nd ammendment.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

You are correct on the beginning, but the ending is what really gives it a punch. This is a -SINGLE- sentence. The beginning nearly states why the following occurs. The 2nd half of the sentence states what actually is being guaranteed.

" the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.". This is the -ONLY- "action" of the sentence.

Granted, I didn't write it, and it's meaning is still up for debate apparently but there are a few people out there that agree with my interpretation of it:

Thomas Jefferson:

"Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state."

George Washington:

"A free people ought to be armed." Speech Jan 7, 1790.

Thomas Jefferson:

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." Letter to William S. Smith, January 30, 1787, in Jefferson, On Democracy , pg. 20 (S. Padover ed., 1939)

John Adams:

"Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion...in private self defense." A Defense of the U.S. Constitutions of Government of the United States of America (1787-88)

James Madison:

The Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." The Federalist #46.

Thomas Paine:

"...arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property...Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them," Thoughts on Defensive War, (1775)

Thomas Jefferson:

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." Quoting 18th Century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764)

Richard Henry Lee:

' A militia when properly formed is in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms...To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms..." Additional Letters From the Federal Farmer 53 (1788)

Samuel Adams:

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." During Massachusetts' U.S. Constitution Ratification Convention (1788)

Alexander Hamilton:

"Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year." Federalist Papers, Article 29 January 10, 1788

Re:Hrmm

[pi_rules]

I wish all you gun-toting fucktards would just go create your own nation,

We did. Who the hell let you in here?

Re:Hrmm

[Feztaa]

Just
a note, in junior high, a vice principle tried to break up a fight. He got
tossed out of a second floor window for his trouble.

Makes me glad to be Canadian. You see, it's very difficult to built igloos more than one storey high, so most schools only have the one floor.

Re:Hrmm

[$uperjay]

You support the right for creation of militias?

Hey, that's great.

What does this have to do with firearm laws?

Saying 'The 2nd Amendment is about everyone being able to have guns' is like saying 'the 14th Amendment was about protecting civil rights and doing away with segregation', silly.

Re:Hrmm

[loucura!]

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.

The Constitution is the highest law of the land. If you want to reinterpret it, you need to get a constitutional amendment. What's that? You can't get an amendment to infringe on the right to own weapons? Then quit-your-bitching, the law states that the right shall not be infringed, and until the Constitution says otherwise, that's the law.

Re:Hrmm

[Daimaou]

The people are irrational though, and the argument against them is sound. What are you going to do, make gun control laws that are "new and improved" or "extra strength"?

Re:Hrmm

[josh crawley]

People do illegal things. Therefore, laws are ineffective. Therefore, we should get rid of all the laws (except the 2nd Amendment) and just carry a DEagle 5-0. Anyone who thinks differently is a whack-job.

Re:Hrmm

[zulux]

"Columbine". Your turn.

I'll raise your "Columbine" and give you a "Nazi" - and a misspelling - "Loser".

Re:Hrmm

[Cpt_Kirks]

I want a derringer that fires .50 AE.

If you are going to carry a derringer, you might as well buy one that shoots through schools...

Re:Hrmm

[Bios_Hakr]

I have thought a lot about that problem. I would like to be able to have a gun, but I know that most illegal guns come from legal purchaces. Not to mention that if the flow of ammunition was stopped, most criminals would not be able to fire their guns.

Imagine having to find powder ingredentes, mix and test the powder, find spent casings, form the bullet, pack the casing, and finally, insert the bullet. That, to me, would be too much work for a criminal to go out and "gang bang".

Along with ceacing bullet production, I suggest a NRA maintained list of owners cross-referenced with the guns they own. If a firearm is recovered from the scene of a crime, then the original owner should be charged with accessory to that crime. This would make people less likely to leave the crate of Glocks on their back porch to be "stolen".

And if you ever sold a gun, you'd be damn sure to see that the license was transfered.

In exchage for the cops having access to the database, we'd get access to "assault weapons". After all, how are you going to defend your home from the Army if all you have is a shotgun?

Personally, I think that the right to bear arms should include firearms, rockets, grenades, bombs, missles, nukes, chemicals, biological agents, and strong crypto. That cop thinking about arresting me for smoking a joint needs a moment of pause to think about drug policy.

Re:Hrmm

[argStyopa]

OK, I'm a pro-gun-ownership person myself, although I don't own any guns. I also happen to be a strict constitutionalist, meaning I hold the framers and their ideas in very high regard and the current legislative Supreme Court in equally low regard.

But I will point out that if you read not only the clause, but the text of the different colonies' suggested amendments and correspondence around this issue, it is abundantly clear that the reason the various "right to keep and bear arms" proposals were made were entirely in the context of PREVENTING the establishment of a standing army in the United States.

One could thus either say that SINCE we have a standing army, private ownership of guns should be strictly regulated since the point is now moot.

OR, one could conclude that, with the establishment of a standing army by the United States government, we have progressed DIRECTLY down the road toward an over-intrusive and domineering Federal Government. In which case the citizenry should fight ever stronger AGAINST the further restriction of firearms because it is exactly this which the Founding Fathers prophecied in the case of an over-powerful Federal system: the disarming of the citizenry as a prelude to tyranny.

Take your pick.

Re:Hrmm

[paganizer]

While I can see why you posted this one as AC, "Better, I think, admitting that freedoms come with associated risks and arguing that the freedom is worth it" is such a clear way to phrase things.
Unfortunately, while I understand this and accept it, apparently few others can.

Re:Hrmm

[whatch durrin]

What?

Why would it matter if we could own "firearms, rockets, grenades, bombs, missles," etc., if we don't have access to ammunition? Or was that your point all along?

By the way, your reference to giving the cop "a moment to pause and think" is asinine. You may not agree with certain laws, but that's why we have them: they apply to everyone.

If a cop has to hesitate before arresting you on a drug charge because he's worried about getting blown away...you're one sorry ass MF. It's one thing to defend yourself or your family from personal injury - it's totally another to think you're above the law.

Don't like the drug laws? Write your congressman, march outside the state house, have benefit concerts, promote "awareness." But the second you threaten the life of a cop so you can smoke a joint is the second when I could care less if you occupy the planet.

Cops don't write the laws. They get paid shit wages to do their job and for the most part they do it well.

So fuck off.

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.

Re:Hrmm

[Mr. Slippery]

Imagine having to find powder ingredentes, mix and test the powder, find spent casings, form the bullet, pack the casing, and finally, insert the bullet. That, to me, would be too much work for a criminal to go out and "gang bang".

Imagine having to find heroin ingredients, mix and test the powder, find syringes, and finally shoot it into your vein. That, to me, would be too much trouble to get high - yet 1 in 11 adults in Baltimore city is a heroin addict. Anyone who wants it can get it.

If you can't keep crack and heroin away from people, what makes you think you can keep ammunition off the black market?

Re:Hrmm

[KrispyKringle]

We have photoids and licenses for automobiles, and a lot more people benefit from their use than from guns. We have greater monitoring and accountability for their use, and far greater restrictions to get a license, even though in many parts of the US cars are critical to our freedom of movement. We have strict crackdowns on the use of "illicit" drugs, even though their use is statistically far less dangerous for others than that of handguns. We crack down on encryption technology even though it serves a significant legitimate purpose of protecting anonymous speech, which the Supreme Court has defended as a critical component of our First Amendment rights.

All of you gun-nuts think the gob'mint is going to come grab your precious shotgun and then you'll have nothing to keep the IRS man away with. Cut me a fucking break (yes, I know this isn't an appropriate level of discourse, and I apologize--I'm tired, both physically and metaphorically). All "fundamental freedoms" crucial to our freedom, even the very essence of our freedom, our right to individuality, free thought, and free expression, takes its limits. Such is the nature of living in a society; we are not anarchists, and the rights of the individual to do whatever the fuck he wants do not always take precedence over what is best for society as a whole.

Hell, the government has the right to send me off to war to kill people I don't have anything against or to die for some rich old man to get a little richer. So what if you can't buy the biggest, baddest gun you want? (Seriously, why do people get angry at laws restricting them to three guns per month? Is that not enough around Christmass? And should we really allow people to buy anti-aircraft guns or shoulder-launched anti-tank missiles?)

Re:Hrmm

[ocelotbob]

This is of course, only if you ignore the fact that the kids had the fucking propane tanks in the school rigged to explode. Suppose they didn't have a gun, what would have happened? They probably would have just blown up the school, causing many more deaths than happened with their illegally obtained guns. Care to counter?

Re:Hrmm

[pkinetics]

Imagine having to find powder ingredentes, mix and test the powder, find spent casings, form the bullet, pack the casing, and finally, insert the bullet. That, to me, would be too much work for a criminal to go out and "gang bang".

So lets remove firearms. Then these gang bangers won't be using guns but knives, baseball bats, tire irons, and what not.

You say that's not too bad... well add another 20 years, and then they start outlawing these things.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that the police are not responsible for your safety. Nothing against the people who will put their life on the line for me.

The National Gaurd is called upon by the President to handle both foreign and domestic situations. They don't protect your interest.

In the end, the only one who can protect you and your family, is you.

Oh, and lets forget that a portion of the ammo sold in the US, is actually manufactured outside the US, and that anything outlawed just becomes more expensive, and the criminals have the money to do it.

Re:Hrmm

[Keeper]

Two points:

1) It is difficult to accurately interpret the second ammendment, primarily because the way the sentence was constructed is ambiguous, primarily because it has at least one comma too many and is missing another punctuation mark.

It could be interpreted to say "The right of the people to keep and bear arms can not be infringed", with the first half of the sentence being background information.

It could be interpreted to say that the right of a militia (armed group of citizens) group to keep and bear arms can not be infringed.

It could be interpreted to say that there can't be a law prohibiting militias, nor a law stating that their right to keep and bear arms can not be infringed.

It could be interpreted to say that there can't be a law prohibiting militias, nor a law stating that the people's right to keep and bear arms can not be infringed.

I personally think the last item is the most accurate one. I also think that at the time, such a statement made a lot of sense -- the common man could afford the arms to defend his country. Today, in the age of 16 million dollar military jets, multi million dollar tanks, and guns that can empty a clip of ammo before you can react to the first shot, I don't think it does make a lot of sense.

2) (didn't think I'd ever make it to the second point, did you?) While I may not necessarily agree with it, the Supreme Court has interpreted it as meaning that the people will always have the right to keep and bear arms -- however, they also have stated that the constitution says nothing about being able to keep and bear any/all kind of arms, so as long as there is a single firearm available to a common citizen (even if it's a lousy 9mm pistol that holds 1 round) gun control laws are constutional.

Re:Hrmm

[ajs318]

The definition of a firearm is a weapon in which a chemical reaction provides the energy to accelerate the projectile. In this gun, the projectile is accelerated electromagnetically, by energy supplied from a rechargeable battery. Inside that battery is ..... a chemical reaction! Ergo, this weapon is a firearm.

In this country, it is illegal for anyone to own a gun; so only criminals have guns. And they are using them. But since criminals constitute a tiny minority of the population, then this is not as bad as some people make it out to be. Some innocent people are bound to get shot, but that's just bad luck you can't legislate for. Generally, if you stay away from military types and criminals, you can be born and die without ever coming anywhere near a live firearm.

Re:Hrmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Your fundamental lack of understanding the aurguments about gun registration show your prejuces on the matter.

This country was founded to keep men free. With freedom comes responsibility. Part of the resposibility of a grown person is the ability to take care of themselves and their property. In order to do this we must have self defense, which in turn requires ownership of firearms by the general population.

Nobody gives a rats ass about registration. The only thing people give a damn about is that registration is a precurser to seizure of firearms. You make lists of people with firearms so that you can take those weapons away easier.

Registration serves no purpose other then that. Criminals do NOT buy weapons from gunstores or private responsible individuals. They buy them from other criminals who are experts at working around the buerocratic net set up to stop this activity. The only people who would register guns are law-abiding citizens. This makes the concept of regulating firearms null and void from the offset.

Criminals already break the law. If you kill someone with a firearm, what is that compared to breaking a firearm registration law? Nothing. If you break the law you make it easier to get away with the murder, if you follow the law it makes it harder. Which would do you think criminals choose? If a person is willing to risk exicution or life in prison, what is a extra 5 years penalty going to accomplish for fighting crime.

Registration is useless exept for gun seizeres. It treats everyone who would by a gun as a potential criminal. This is not the behavior of "a government for the people and by the people"
This is the behavior of a socialist state, which by it's nature subverts freedoms for better control over the populace.

Another aurgument is that gun registration can make "finger printing" a gun possible. This is were the groves on a bullet and impressions on a case can be matched to a database.

It's actually pretty retarded. A unskilled person with a file and a pair of pliers can change this "finger print" the firing pin on a case to make it untracable in five minutes. Or they can simply replace the pin with a different one.

The bullet type finger printing is worthless, too. The impression of the barrel on a bullet changes over time and can be affected by stuff like lead fouling, dirtyness and other uncontrollable factors.

This makes this system makes it close to trash for prosicuting criminals. Especially if they intented to use a illigal unregistared gun in a illigal criminal act, and had time to prep for the criminal act.

OH, BTW if drugs are harmless compared to guns how about this...
Alchohol killed 110,000+ people, perscription drugs killed 32,000 people, illitic drugs killed 17000 people in 1998... how does that compare to 32000 in 1997?

Looks like you could save 3 times as many lives if you make alchohol illigal. Or maybe you should start a registration of people buying alchohol so that they can be tracked by satalite with a transiver they must wear to buy a drink and if they get in a car, they should be tracked down and arrested on the spot.

Oh, another thing. A full 2/3 of gun deaths are drug related. If poeple stopped addicting themselves to that crap, then you would have a dramit drop in gun related deaths.

Re:Hrmm

[arcanumas]

In Greece there was a sudden supply of really cheap (i mean 30 Euro cheap) stolen Kalasnikof (or what's it called). This is a combat rifle , not a toy. This supply was braught by the uprising in the neighbouring Albania. So it is really safe to say there are many many "war" weapons in the hands of many citizens (and mostly criminals i may add). Do you know how many die from these weapons every year? No? Well neither do i. I can not recall the last time there was a murder.
So don't blame the owning of guns or the breaking of gun laws. Blame the society and the rules and values on which it is based that drive these kids to something like that.

So... what does it do, blur your target out?

[Qzukk]

Sort of a new meaning to rubbing someone out ;)

Re:So... what does it do, blur your target out?

[thbbpt]

Um... First I thought someone left out the de- prefix. On second thought, it would probably be a bad idea to use this on a computer monitor...

Found something better in a google search

[adzoox]

So I could find out what the heck a gauss gun is .... it's a magnetic propulsion gun icase some of you were wondering like I was.

This is a do EASY do it yourself I found:

http://www.scitoys.com/scitoys/scitoys/magnets/g auss.html

Re:Found something better in a google search

[jsse]

To put it more simpler, this is the first weapon used by the robotic grinning lady in T3. :)

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?

[Evil Parakeet]

SkArcher (676201) : >Gauss Rifles are from battletech Though that's a fairly well known usage, the Gauss Rifle and Gauss Pistol (and VRF Gauss Gun) date *at least* to 1978, when they appeared in the aforementioned SF RPG "Traveller" by GDW. FASA later "adopted" the Gauss Rifle for use in Battletech, but FASA got its start as a licensed producer for Traveller... Chirp.

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.

Re:They don't exist?

[Cpt_Kirks]

IIRC, the light 5.56mm slug is unstable, and tumbles when it hits an object. It spins in the body like a circular saw.

The new, heavier round used with the M16A2 is more stable, hits and penetrates better, but is less lethal.

Re:They don't exist?

[cybercuzco]

Just remember, Guns dont kill people, transfer of momentum kills people.

No sound!

[Phosphor3k]

Niiiiiice. Ramp up the power a bit more and you have the perfect sniper gun. You could shoot someone and people around them would not even know a shot had been fired, let alone what direction it came from.

Re:No sound!

[f97tosc]

No sound! Niiiiiice. Ramp up the power a bit more and you have the perfect sniper gun

Except for the fact that the bullet (~1000m/s in most rifles) will break the sound barrier (~340 m/s).

Tor

Re:No sound!

[the_2nd_coming]

1) a good sniper rifle can hit a target at around a mile away or more....you will here no sound

2) a good sniper will position him/her self in a place out of the site range of his /her target

3) people know the general direction a shot comes from when a person is hit.

Re:No sound!

[BWJones]

Except for the fact that the bullet (~1000m/s in most rifles) will break the sound barrier (~340 m/s).

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.

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.

Re:No sound!

[gfody]

mention something covered in a howstuffworks article and sudenly every geek is an expert on gun silencers

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:No sound!

[josh crawley]

Um, yes, but if the bullet is going faster than the speed of sound, then the fuckers head will already be exploded by the time he hears it!!

Re:No sound!

[josh crawley]

Don't try to fool me because I'm a seasoned expert at this. If you just use an AWP with an aimhack you can waste all of them before they turn around.

Re:No sound!

[IWannaBeAnAC]

True. The only long-term danger with handgun technologies (and I use the word 'danger' quite deliberately) is directed energy weapons. They are completely impractical nowdays because there exists no such compact energy source. Now, IAATP (I am a theoretical physicist) and I know of no 'emerging' ideas that would permit such a weapon; but there are no laws of nature that forbit it either; therefore it is probably only a matter of time (if we are very lucky, hundreds of years or so).

Of course, if the USA get a large enough laser in space, or on a 747, then all these arguments are moot.

Re:No sound!

[ScuzzMonkey]

I just got this crazy mental picture of a crew of burly blonde men trying to heft an oil drum sized silencer onto a 155mm howitzer.

Forgive me, but where on Earth would you use silencer in the Swedish artillery?

Re:No sound!

[BenEnglishAtHome]

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

Wow. I never ceased to be amused by people who pop off so confidently about things they obviously know so little about. What on earth makes you think that supersonic projectile velocity is necessary for a sniper rifle? The whole family of Whisper cartridges are astonishingly useful while deliberately being designed to stay subsonic. In fact, it's become clear from some long-range shooting sports that holding velocity below the sound barrier avoids certain wind drift problems. Try reading Understanding Firearm Ballistics by Robert A. Rinker. If you can hack the math, his explanation of the characteristics of transonic bullet flight make very clear that low velocity rounds can be highly useful in a number of applications.

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 :-)

Re:No sound!

[Locmar]

In WWII, the British developed a little gun specifically for commandos called the Delisle Carbine...it's basically a Lee-Enfield rifle mated with a Colt 1911 which has a silencer built in as an integral part. It was rechambered from the Enfield's .303 to the Colt's .45 ACP so that it would be subsonic, and commandos could use it as a sniper rifle (despite the fact that it was essentially a large pistol).

Re:No sound!

[nettdata]

I don't doubt that at all, but now the issue was their benefit in sniper rifles, in particular those made out of Gauss guns. And I think my point still holds, that subsonic is not your typical method of choice for sniper rifles

Hmmm... some people/snipers would beg to differ with you.

You may wish to check out these titles for some interesting concepts/tidbits:

The Ultimate Sniper"

or

US Army Special Operations Target Interdiction Course"

They are very interesting reads.

Weapons are the heart of other freedom!

[Thinkit3]

We need to embrace weapon technology. For what is keeping these illogical "intellectual property" laws in place? Their weapons. All technology is cool, but weapon technology is cooler right now.

Slashterrorist?

[eric434]

Lots of dangerous DIY type sites, two in a row in fact...

Note to self: Call off team planning to burglarize Slashdot Headquarters.

Great...

[Anonymous Coward]

The next thing you know, these will come standard in every computer sold, to protect the RIAA's IP.

Gauss driven pistol

[Almost-Retired]

Interesting concept. Just one Q though, as it doesn't seem to be discussed on the site in the link, and that is how does it achieve the effect of a normal rifled barrel in causeing the iron bullet to spin and therefore be stabilized in flight?

Re:Gauss driven pistol

[Zirnike]

APDSFSDU ammo, used in tank rounds: Armor piercing discarding sabot fin stabilized depleted uranium (I'm almost sure that's the right order for the acronym...)

Alternately, you could use magnets that are 'twisted' in pole (I can't get to the site to see the actual design, so bear with me). For example, you could use 3 rod magnets in each 'stage' (or 3 e-mags, whatever) and then rotate them relative to the previous row, giving you a triple helix. Then 'lobe' the slug. The magnets will 'draw' the lobes along and spin it.

sonic boom...

[Thinkit3]

It'd have to be subsonic, and if it was, it'd be no different than a silencer today.

5mm bullet, 33 m/s muzzle velocity

[homer_ca]

"Bullet is iron, diameter is 5 mm, length 25 mm, weight is 2,75 g.
Muzzle velocity about 33 m/s."

In comparison, an air rifle shoots a 4.5mm pellet at about 800 ft/s.

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.

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

[Auckerman]

You must work for NASA. Hint, if you want to land on Mars, learn to use only metric...

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

[Sycraft-fu]

Diameter. That is the standard mesurement when talking about bullets with a sinlge number. If I say I have a 9mm gun, I mean it has a barrel 9mm in diameter, likewise a .223 is a gun with a barrel 0.223 inches in diameter. If you want length then a second number is specified. For example standard 9mm amuniton is 9x19mm (that includes the length of the case). However, for much ammunition, it is assumed form the name that the length is known. If I say 9mm Luger, .45ACP or 5.56 NATO, I am talking about a standard type of ammo and the length is known.

In the case of pellet air guns, you are generally talking about a plastic sphere for a bullet, and so a uniformsize in all directions.

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.

Metal Storm

[Squidgee]

This has been done, and is now recieving military funding. Check it out here.

Scary stuff.

Re:Metal Storm

[JaredOfEuropa]

Metal Storm is not a Gauss gun. It's simply one or more barrels, each containing multiple bullets with a propellant stacked in between the bullets. Electronics set off the propellants in a timed fashion, allowing incredible rates of fire.

The use for Metal Storm seems to be rather limited though. Large caliber and/or explosive or armor-piercing rounds are more efficient against hardened targets, and a Gatling seems to do just fine against fast moving targets (Goalkeeper / Phalanx antimissile systems). The only interesting application I saw was in underwater anti-torpedo systems.

I will be more impressed...

[craenor]

When they build the first Gauze pistol!!

Airports

[www.sorehands.com]

Will the airport security start taking away your magnets, and wires?

Instead of propelling metal slugs, you can propel paper clips -- "you can take an eye out with that thing."

Re:Airports

[Hanzie]

Will the airport security start taking away your magnets, and wires?

Do you seriously think you could sneak one of those on a plane? did you see the pictures? It would be confiscated on sight, while you were arrested. If you tried to hide it in your luggage, it would look to the x-ray tech like you were trying to disguise a bomb as a gun.

Yes, airport security will take away your magnets, wires, batteries and pointy slugs. And you too.

Thank you Slashdot!

[PseudoThink]

Now I have all I need to build my own NUCLEAR POWERED GAUSS CANNON!

Pls post more info on how to refine radioactive materials...oh, wait, you've already got my back.

Slashdot...news for terrorists. Stuff that works.

Do you feel lucky punk?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh-huh. I know what you're thinking. Does he have six AA batteries or only five AA batteries in that thing?

Sidetracked.

[chendo]

What is a Russian software developer making gauss guns for? Isn't he supposed to be making lethal software?

the origin of the Gauss Pistol

[kurosawdust]

Oh wait, wait, I know this story, a math prof of mine told me in class once...Gauss's elementary school teacher wanted to keep his class busy so he told them to sit at their desks and sum the integers from 1 to 100 so Gauss got pissed off and shot him! ...right?...why is everyone staring at me like that?

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.

Thinking of a pun (rhymes with gun... hrmm...)

[ToadMan8]

SO I was readin' this guy's webpage and was thinkin' "Wow, this guy's site is bulletproof; his server is solid man..." then I was thinkin' "hey, good thing - the guy makes gauss guns..." Get it? Good thing server is bulletproof, makes gauss guns... Ya know, like 'cause the guy better have a bulletproof server 'cause it could get all accidentally shot up and stuff with those Gauss guns he's makin'?! Heh... Bedtime. Please karma gods be good to me.

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.

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

[Cordath]

Interestingly enough, the per capita number of guns in Canada is a mere fraction of that in the U.S.. Coincidentally, so are violent crimes and home firearms accidents. Heck, even our military is pretty touchy feely. Half the time we're not sure whether to call it an army or a "peace-keeping force"! The world knows we're F'ing peaceniks, but our biggest fear is the nuclear fallout we're going to get when some pissed off terrorists finally nuke our Southern neighbors.

There is a fine line between a fun hobby and weapons research. The weapon described in the above article is powerful enough to cause severe injury or even kill a target, is silent, and is small enough to be concealed. It's a gun, not a toy. Construction parts and ammunition for these guns are not currently controlled, unlike conventional firearms ammunition. It is quite likely a round fired from one of these guns cannot be matched to the gun that fired it, as with conventional firearms. To sum up, what we have here is a recipe for a gun that can be made from readily available parts and may also not leave incriminating evidence on every round fired. Ammunition for these suckers could be as simple as some batteries and ball bearings. Sounds like a tailor made gang weapon to me.

Is this man's website then, evil? I'd say it isn't. He's an innocent. He has no idea what people will do with his small evolutionary contribution to gauss gun technology. In this sense he's a lot like Pandora. However, the box was probably already open. There are probably several other similar and perhaps even more advanced designs out there anyways, some possibly on the net.

What is important is that theis site's readers realize that designs as refined as this one are not fun projects. They're dangerous weapons. If you build one, make sure you have adequate firearms safety training and follow the proper safety precautions when storing it. Sooner or later somebody's kid is going to shoot themselves with one of these. Don't let it be yours.

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

Here, have a mirror

[Biogenesis]

http://members.optushome.com.au/dbsite1/www.pskovi nfo.ru/coilgun/index.htm

abount time i used the webspace my ISP gives me for something usefull.

Re:Interesting case in point: IRAQ

[Lars T.]

Every Iraqi is armed, with a AK47/74 or even RPG-7.

Ahh, so why didn't they do anything against Saddam? Didn't Bush claim that almost every Iraqi hated him? Yet they wait to start fighting until the Americans come?

"Crazy Americans"

[fantomas]

"Thank you for officially beginning the obligatory Second Amendment flame-war. I will counter by making the obligatory mention of Columbine. "Columbine". Your turn."

... And I in turn will make the obligatory rest-of-the-worldian observation
"wow, aren't these crazy Americans obsessed by guns?"

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!

when i hear the word gun, i reach for my culture

[gobbo]

I remember being a spry 19 with a Eurailpass and a girlfriend living in Switzerland. When I got there to visit, I was profoundly struck by the culture around guns. I'd go to restaurants and there'd be rifles leaning up against the umbrella stand, and other kinds of casual behaviour with the weaponry of those in military service.

Maybe someone Swiss can throw perspective on this. The Swiss murder rate is low, gun ownership is very high [the stats I've seen are for handguns, but as in Canada a higher proportion of guns are rifles than in USA]. (I'm not going to karmawhore with links to stats--the gun debate uses stats like bullets, anyway--google away.)

Even in Canada, where we have very low handgun murder rates compared to our neighbour, we don't just leave rifles unattended in public spaces. What that spoke to me of was a trust that everyone else around is more or less responsible, understands and respects the rules around guns, and is not desperate.

Since the country has survived with great stability through some incredible historical pressures, I figure the trust wasn't naive. (Maybe things are different in the EU now.) They had/have a cultural understanding around guns and poverty, about getting along politically, perhaps, an expectation of honesty, smaller town sizes...?

Everyone was involved in public military service in some way, at various times. They certainly weren't a big melting pot at the time. Who knows. But it's obvious that gun proliferation is damaging to US society... Not because of the arming of the people, but what they're arming with, and why. Maybe gun advocates should also be anti-poverty activists, in order to achieve their goals.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

"Who knows. But it's obvious that gun proliferation is damaging to US society... Not because of the arming of the people, but what they're arming with, and why."

It has nothing to do with what they are arming with, your visit to Switzerland proves that. There is an automatic weapon in nearly every home there and they don't have the murder rate the US does. By contrast automatic weapons are illegal here (since 1934) and we have a higher murder rate. I think your last sentence is a good summation the problem has more to do with poverty and intelligence than access to firearms.

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.

Looks good - works...

[yabHuj]

...not really. 1.5J is just double as much as an average "SoftAir" pistol.
These are good enough for a "ouch", but cannot even penetrate bare skin.
For a "real" weapon you need a muzzle velocity that is ~3 orders of magnitude higher than in the current model (i.e. km/s instead of m/s).

Cudos to the design though - the gun looks nice. Much nicer than all the other Gauss-thingies I have seen so far...

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

[gobbo]

In Switzerland, they don't carry guns around on their hips! What are you thinking, the wild west? The answer is NOT "extremely simple" -- and I think you've never lived there. Plus, the murder rate by guns isn't as low in Switzerland as other places that have restricted access to handguns, like Canada (I guess Canucks prefer knives or broken beer bottles).

I would be interested in knowing just which countries you've been in where the murder rate is astronomical compared to the USA. If you mean places that are an economic disaster, with widespread desperate poverty, well big surprise! But if you mean heavily industrialized nations, please enlighten.

"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?" -- Well, thank you for illustrating my point about culture perfectly. You exhibit an acceptance that crime carries an acceptable risk of lethal violence. I think that that is a cultural attitude that suggests societal immaturity, rather than an abhorrence of lethal violence... in other words, a culture where someone wants/needs to steal but is more likely unwilling to kill, will have a different relationship to guns -- "you" would be scared of sticking up a cafe because of the risk of killing someone! No it's not naive to think this, but it is dependent upon social and cultural conditions, everything from income disparity to racism to what's on the tube.

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.