Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Build Your Own Gauss Pistol

Posted by michael on from the move-over,-paintball-gun dept.

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."

37 of 648 comments (clear)

  1. Hrmm by Vokbain · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    1. Re:Hrmm by SkArcher · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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?

      --

      An infinite number of monkeys will eventually come up with the complete works of /.
    2. Re:Hrmm by pi_rules · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:Hrmm by pete-classic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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

    4. Re:Hrmm by AceMarkE · · Score: 4, Informative

      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

    5. Re:Hrmm by pi_rules · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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

    6. Re:Hrmm by pi_rules · · Score: 4, Funny
      I wish all you gun-toting fucktards would just go create your own nation,


      We did. Who the hell let you in here?
    7. Re:Hrmm by Feztaa · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

    8. Re:Hrmm by josh+crawley · · Score: 4, Funny

      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.

    9. Re:Hrmm by zulux · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Columbine". Your turn.

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

      --

      Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.

    10. Re:Hrmm by argStyopa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      -Styopa
  2. So... what does it do, blur your target out? by Qzukk · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sort of a new meaning to rubbing someone out ;)

    --
    If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  3. Found something better in a google search by adzoox · · Score: 5, Informative
    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

    --
    Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
  4. They don't exist? by cyranoVR · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:They don't exist? by SkArcher · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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...

      --

      An infinite number of monkeys will eventually come up with the complete works of /.
    2. Re:They don't exist? by Mostly+a+lurker · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    3. Re:They don't exist? by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
  5. No sound! by Phosphor3k · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:No sound! by f97tosc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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

    2. Re:No sound! by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    3. Re:No sound! by BWJones · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    4. Re:No sound! by f97tosc · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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

    5. Re:No sound! by josh+crawley · · Score: 4, Funny

      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!!

    6. Re:No sound! by BenEnglishAtHome · · Score: 4, Informative
      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.

  6. Slashterrorist? by eric434 · · Score: 5, Funny

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

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

    --
    This .sig temporary until a better .sig can be constructed.
  7. Gauss driven pistol by Almost-Retired · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Gauss driven pistol by Zirnike · · Score: 4, Informative
      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.

      --
      I'm not shy, I'm stalking my prey
  8. 5mm bullet, 33 m/s muzzle velocity by homer_ca · · Score: 5, Informative

    "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.

  9. Thank you Slashdot! by PseudoThink · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  10. Do you feel lucky punk? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  11. the origin of the Gauss Pistol by kurosawdust · · Score: 5, Funny

    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?

  12. Re:Airports by Hanzie · · Score: 4, Funny
    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.
    --
    ********* sig: If you don't like the law, get filthy stinking rich, and buy a better one.
  13. Thinking of a pun (rhymes with gun... hrmm...) by ToadMan8 · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

    --
    I haven't posted in so long, my sig is out of date.
  14. Re:You got one thing right. This is a *WEAPON*. by Kintanon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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

    --
    Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
  15. Here, have a mirror by Biogenesis · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    --
    ...just so Google finds it.
  16. "Crazy Americans" by fantomas · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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?"

  17. when i hear the word gun, i reach for my culture by gobbo · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.

    --
    Damn those pesky terrorists