Slashdot Mirror
New Tech Puts the Brakes On Bullets Fired From Police Sidearms
Zothecula writes: Police officers are trained to shoot for the center of mass, not necessarily to kill, but to stop – although the end result can often be one and the same. "The Alternative" is designed to give officers a less lethal option in the form of a clip-on "air bag" for semiautomatic pistols that reduces the velocity of a standard round to make it less lethal. At the front of the bright orange carrier is a hollow sphere made of a proprietary alloy that catches the bullet and firmly embeds it as it leaves the barrel. The ball and bullet fuse, slowing the round by 80 percent. At this speed, the ball-encased round is less likely to penetrate flesh, but it will transfer enough kinetic energy across a wide surface to knock a suspect down with less chance of a lethal outcome.
From the pictures in TFA, this looks like a SINGLE SHOT mod. So not much problem of jams or such.
But, how many times do cops fire a single round? Not often.
How many times do cops firing multiple rounds miss? A lot.
This is a stupid idea.
So, what is you plan to disarm criminals as well ? Because you do plan to disarm criminals, don't you ?
Looks like some idiot an Gizmag was talked into doing an article by some hair brained inventor again. Neither party understands physics so they both think its great. As mentioned a few times here by others before me that firing a bullet into another ball isn't going to increase its knock down power (Conservation of momentum). The stupidity from there grows by training a law enforcement officer to use the gun as a first resort instead of a last one. Also for when lethal force is called for it means that the officer will have one less effective bullet and their follow up shots will be done with them dealing with the recoil from their first useless shot. Bad idea all around!
I don't want to do a sig now
How do you plan to disarm criminals ? The gun, ammo, and knowledge to build them is out there. If an Afghan can build an AK in a cave with nothing but hand-tools, what do you think someone in the US can do with access to milling machine, lathe, and 3D printer ?
Why not just use rubber bullets or baton rounds? The technology has been around since the 70s and you are not limited to one less-lethal shot. In fact rubber bullets seem like a far better idea - with this solution what happens if the first shot misses?
The problem with "non-lethal" weapons is that when given to police, they tend to use them more often and with less provocation than with a firearm.
Look at how taser-happy the police have become- FFS, they'll tase you for just standing nearby watching what they're doing.
When I was growing up the police were much more reasonable and much less likely to go ballistic/aggressive when questioned...now if you dare to question them, out comes the pepper spray, baton, and taser. If that doesn't immediately make you "comply" (i.e. go away, stop watching, stop filming, whatever) out comes the gun and handcuffs.
I've seen it myself. Today's police officer has a gun (often 2 guns), a baton, a knife, a taser, pepper spray, steel-toed boots, a ballistic vest and a radio. And yet police today are the biggest pussies I've ever seen. They dress like extras from RoboCop and yet they're scared shitless and feel "threatened" by a teenager wearing a t-shirt and shorts. When did cops turn into such pants-wetting pussies? When did they become such chicken-shit cowards?
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
The only way to disarm criminals is arm citizens. And let the police do their damn job instead of whining about another thug being shot.
You can't even guarantee most guns can even consistently fire (except for Glock), this looks like more of the tech-solves-everything blind faith.
The problem I see is though, when a law abiding citizen walks into Lowe's or Chipotle's brandshing his piece as is his second amendment right and in his camos how are the other law abiding citizens in the same place going to know if he is a good gut or a bad guy?
Therein lies the problem. If I'm concealed carrying at the moment, they are going to have about a second to convince me they are not entering with harmful intent. At that point, it's now a really bad situation.
This is not a trivial problem.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
From the article: "but it will transfer enough kinetic energy across a wide surface to knock a suspect down"
Nope. If the bullet had enough kinetic energy to knock down the suspect, the gun would have enough kinetic energy to knock down the shooter. But of course it doesn't. Equal and opposite reaction. Conservation of momentum. Sir Isaac is rolling over in his grave. And I'm sure the coffin is counter-rotating. :)
"He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
(Trigger warning: Physics teacher here!)
Actually, momentum is NOT conserved for the *shooter*. He is bracing himself against something (his feet on the ground, usually), so there is an external force acting on him. Thus, this particular argument fails.
For the victim, if he is shot unawares (so he doesn't brace himself), then conservation of momentum *does* apply. I calculate that he will experience a force to his chest of about 35 newtons (~8 pounds). That's not much, and won't accelerate him much.
However--it may well knock him down. The reason is, the force to his chest will cause a torque on him, which will cause him to rotate down to the ground. If we assume he rotates about his feet, and treat him as a solid cylinder (reasonable approximation) then I get an angular acceleration of about 0.4 radians per second per second (22 degrees per second per second).
That only lasts while the bullet is in contact with him, of course; after that, the victim has a gravitational torque on him, with a corresponding angular acceleration (I estimate) of 9 rad/s/s.
If someone wants to check my work, I'll supply the numbers and things I used. I might well have made a mistake or missed something.
"Don't blame the log for the fire." --Andrew Ratshin
15 years ago that was every boy. Now you have to be some kind of troubled youth to enjoy killing can with BBs.
I went all over with a BB gun (rifle and pistols) and NEVER ONCE pointed at people in order to get a kick out of scaring them, menacing them or anything like that. Also, when the cops showed up (for whatever reason, never had the neighbors complain about what we were doing with BB guns) we stopped what we were doing, answered questions politely and complied every time.
The difference is not the gun or the BB gun or the airsoft gun. It's the culture, mindeset, intent, and parenting of the person holding it that counts.
Getting shot or not is mostly in the control of the shootee, the shooter is not the driving force (other than being in a profession that is the force part of "authorized force by the state."
The difference is not the gun or the BB gun or the airsoft gun. It's the culture, mindeset, intent, and parenting of the person holding it that counts.
Succinctly well said. And I'll add that parents and the rest of society needs to instill a cultural understanding that we don't live in our own little worlds, but one in which we all share the resulting consequences of our actions. For example, no one would jump out of a plane without a parachute unless they're suicidal, right?! So why should anyone think waving a gun around in public with the intent to scare is a good idea?
Life is not for the lazy.