Army Researchers Patent Self-destructing Bullet Designed To Save Lives (networkworld.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Researchers from the U.S. Army Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center recently patented a new type of bullet capable of self-destructing after traveling over a predetermined distance. The idea behind the new and advanced projectile is that it might help limit the extent of collateral damage (read: innocents dying) during battle or in other operational settings and environments. As for how it all works, the U.S. Army explains that when one of these limited-range projectiles is fired, a pyrotechnical material is ignited at the same time and reacts with a special coating on the bullet. "The pyrotechnic material ignites the reactive material, and if the projectile reaches a maximum desired range prior to impact with a target," the Army writes, "the ignited reactive material transforms the projectile into an aerodynamically unstable object." The researchers add that the desired range of its limited-range projectile can be adjusted by switching up the reactive materials used. Put simply, the Army has come up with what effectively amounts to a self-destructing bullet that is rendered ineffective over certain distances.

Comments

Re:LESS!

[TechyImmigrant]

Or less effective even

Re: What happens when they hit their target?

[Rei]

These things can have unintended consequences, however. Anyone else remember the DIME explosives Israel's been using? Small explosive radius! High lethality within that radius, but the fragments slow down rapidly outside it! Peppers the people around it with countless bits of inoperable, highly carcinogenic shrapnel! Wait, forget that last one.... Small but effective blast radius!

Re:Who Would Want it?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you lug around 40 pounds of ammo with a range set at the maximum effective range of your weapon. Then if you miss your shot doesn't go on to create a friendly fire casualty when it goes on to hit a guy you couldn't even see from the position you fired it.

Re:A Taste of Armageddon

[ScentCone]

The point of war is to cause so much damage to your opponent that they give up whatever they were fighting for

But that is NOT the point, necessarily, of every Special Forces operation. Or the circumstances in which SWAT operators have to do their thing. I can see wanting a high-powered rifle round that is absolutely devastating at close and intermediate distances but which quickly begins to tumble and rapidly bleed off velocity down range. That feature is not inconsistent with causing "so much damage" to bad guys, but it can help preserve the lives of non-combatants that are a kilometer away.

Re:LESS!

[wonkey_monkey]

Fewer effective.

Morons.

Re:LESS!

[Shoten]

Fewer effective.

Morons.

Actually, as I understand it, the project started under George W. Bush, so the original research proposal stated that the desired bullet would be "morer ineffectivicated" after it went "kinda far."

Re:Explosive bullets

[ShanghaiBill]

Even normal tracer rounds can be aerodynamically unstable as the tracer element is exhausted. When I was a Marine, we were taught to never fire 7.62mm tracers overhead of friendly troops beyond a range of 700m, and no more than 400m for 5.56mm tracers. This is the range where they stop glowing. This announcement seems odd to me, since unstable trajectories should make the bullets more dangerous, and they would also be incendiary (they set stuff on fire).

A better approach to limiting the range of bullets may be to train soldiers to avoid excessively elevating their muzzles. Poorly trained troops have a tendency to shoot high, especially at night.

Re:LESS!

[Zak3056]

Somebody who was NOT there has to decide what "could be avoided" means, because merely being there must inevitably compromise your judgement.

Somebody who was NOT there has the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, and history shows they will crucify the poor son of a bitch who was in the bad situation at the time, ignoring that sometimes you do NOT have the luxury of deep thought. Things like Abu Ghraib can be judged by anyone--there was no element of "you need to do this immediately or you and your friends will die." When it comes to "why did you shoot at that house full of civilians?" the issue is a LOT more complicated.

Discounting someone's judgement "because they were there" is inexcusable. Doing so on the topic in question ("Your weapon doesn't work properly because you're a murdering bastard and this is a safety feature to keep you from murdering more people") does, indeed, merit the response "Go fuck yourself."