I believe it’s New Jersey and it’s detailed in the latest issue of Popular Mechanics (with Ah-nuld on the cover).
PM is opposed to it, saying the computer-controlled weapons are at extreme risk for malfunction and the risk of a law-enforcement officer having his own gun turned on him is trivial compared to the risk of having his gun be unavailable when he needs it.
So let’s suppose somebody builds this gun to replace the gatling gun on the A-10. They come up with something that can fire sustained for one minute. This assumes the gun doesn’t get vaporized by its own waste heat in the first five seconds or so.
How much does the ammunition weigh?
Can the warthog even take off with all that weight?
What kind of thrust are we talking about here?
A couple of clarifications (maybe we can get this thread back on track while we’re at it):
This link originally posted by Antonius Block has a lot more of the technical info than the news story did and can help clarify further.
For those who are skeptical of application, check out the link above. It shows that this weapon system can be used with a wide variety of ammunition, including grenades, mortars and other explosive rounds as well as conventional bullets.
The metal storm idea is not new, as noted above, but using a sequenced electronic firing system to actually get that rate of fire is novel. I think when they quote a million rounds per minute they’re talking about a cyclic (theoretical) rate of fire. The heat/friction from a sustained ROF like that would most definitely slag the weapon pretty quickly. As for using it as a mine clearing weapon, there’s already better devices for this (the mine clearing line charge). I can definitely see a use for this weapon as a point air defense weapon, and also could see using it as a replacement for a variety of land mines.
When I started this thread I was wondering if anyone was going to mention Bun Bun
cedric45, I find your strawmen fascinating. Please build some more.
If you are a nurse (as your screen name implies) and you think that the health problems caused by MBTE that the government has introduced into our environment are straw men I suggest you get into another line of work.
The health problems we have to deal with every day are very real make no mistake and they have been verifiably linked to the chemicals in our water.
It’s too late for my daughter but, if YOU are willing to become a victim of violent crime because of some dubious intent of well meaning meddlers please do so as soon as possible.
Like I said before, guns aren’t my issue and I don’t own a handgun at all.
I do teach CPR and First Aid and the ECC board has compiled data clearly showing the majority of non-medical deaths are due to cars wrecks. When you combine all other causes (falls, drownings, gunshots, fires etc.) they don’t even come close. If protection of our citizens REALLY is the concern of our elected officials, shouldn’t they combat the #1 cause? Since they aren’t doing anything to make the average American driver any better, the only conclusion you can possibly reach is they have another agenda. I don’t have any idea what that might be but I got a good feeling it’s not in my best interest!
Sorry, I can’t remember where it was I read about it (maybe WSJ?) because I read to keep myself informed not to educate others who DON"T keep themselves informed. Nobody babysits me so I don’t babysit anybody else.
No malice intended Desmo, that’s just the way it is.
To return to the point I was trying to make in the beginning… anytime any government body starts to do ANYTHING that “helps” you… look out!:eek:
Then get rid of/ban all SUVs. The rest of the world gets along without them too. Then you’d have to ban pickup trucks. (As another thread has revealed the rest of the world doesn’t have pickups as we know them in USA. Here I go again, keeping myself informed!) The rest of the world gets along fine without Hollywood… hey, maybe we’re onto something here!
Look, I’m no soldier or weapons expert, but it seems to me that the major problem for an infantryman is NOT that they don’t have enough firepower, but that they can’t carry enough ammo on their backs to sustain the firepower they are already capable of. Didn’t they add the “3 round burst” setting to the M-16 because full-auto wasted too much ammunition? You rock and roll for the first minute of a firefight, and then you’re done because you used all your magazines.
I’ve seen specs for a man-portable gatling gun like they had in the movie “Predator”. The trouble is that you can carry the GUN around on your back, but you’d need a truck to carry your ammo supply. If your ammo supply needs a truck, you might as well mount the gun on the truck in the first place. Improving the ROF of an infantry weapon in this day and age seems irrelevant.
There have been several weapon designs that used the caseless ammunition the cited weapons use (HK G-11 springs to mind). With these guns, the ammo is light enough that the troops would be able to carry thousands of rounds rather than hundreds. Unfortunately, I believe caseless ammo has storage problems–it’s prone to problems with moisture, for example, and can’t take too much rough handling.
El Marko
Yeah, I mentioned the “handy dandy fire selector.”
I understand that the system is controlled by a computer and in a field environment this brings up even more questions and reservations. If the computer/electronics get messed up, then the weapon could not be repaired at the unit level. You’ld have to sent the weapon to the rear for repairs, unless they are planning some type of plug and play system (or maybe that should be plug and shoot).
I also understand that the barrels would have to removeable in order to facilitate the reloading of the weapon in most instances. Removing and replacing barrels under fire does not sound like fun to me. Also, the barrels would not be able to be reloaded at the unit level…another downside.
Now, looking at the link provided by Antonius Block and El Marko, it appears that for the grenade version, you would be able to reload by first stacking grenades with adapters on top of another and then sliding them down the tubes. Sounds like a great deal of exposure to the poor soldier doing the reloading and, while it allows reloading at the unit level, it does not look like a quick process.
I do admit, the idea of being able to drop 1-64 (or in later versions 1-300) 40mm grenades on the enemy at once is an idea that would make any infantryman sing with joy. I will also admit I didn’t think of the mine clearing possibilities of such a unit. Course, then you have to start thinking about logistics and just how many 40mm grenades are you going to/can a unit carry?
I’m sure this weapon has possibilities, but looking at it from a grunt’s perspective, it looks more like a pain–kinda like all that Advanced Warrior kit where they add about 6 lbs to your rifle.
Well damned if I didn’t come across it while cleaning up the house. (wife is working and I’m sick so I’m trying make this place a little nicer to come home to.)
In December 2002, New Jersey Gov. James McGreevey signed bill S. 573/890, a ban on the retail sale of any currently existing model of any handgun. The ban goes into effect three years after “at least one manufacturer has delivered at least one production model of a personalized handgun to a registered or licensed wholesale or retail dealer in New Jersey or any other state.”
So it was New Jersey not Mass.
it’s three years after, not immediately
it has to actually be one (1) production model
So, I got my facts turned around :smack: but at least I wasn’t wrong!
Nothing in the law says the thing has to actually work though, just be produced. Scary thought there.
Cedric said, "Then get rid of/ban all SUVs. The rest of the world gets along without them too. Then you’d have to ban pickup trucks. "
I’d be fine in a world without SUVs, although at least they have a purpose beyond polluting the atmosphere. I can’t say that handguns have a purpose other than killing people (or target practice:rolleyes: )
Pick-up trucks have a purpose beyond transporting people. Sometimes small amounts of stuff need to be transported.
Your argument about “everything in the world” being more dangerous than guns is statistically sound, I’m guessing, but it still doesn’t make a difference. Guns are made to kill people. Period. All the other things that kill people have other purposes than to kill people.
I suppose we could come up with a really clever banner that said something like, “Guns don’t kill people…people kill people”, but folks would just think we were stupid.
How about banning mullets?
I didn’t say everything in the world, I said all non-medical deaths; no guessing needed. If protecting citizens lives is the REAL reason behind government regulations for guns or for anything else , then teaching Americans to drive more skillfully than they do would be the reasonable thing. THAT would make a huge difference. Americans can’t drive worth a crap.
Senseless arguement there. Guns are used to “put down” injured/sick animals quickly and with mercy. Guns are also used to defend people from animals that pose a threat; snakes, rabid dogs/cats/raccoons/etc. Guns can be used to DEFEND humans from other humans; so, yes a person can be killed by a gun but to say that guns are made TO kill people is just not true.
IF the government means to protect its citizens, then let the government educate/train the people so that they CAN use these other things so that they DON’T kill people.
Again, I’m not a “gun nut” but I do not believe that the government is on the level when they want to protect me from something that is not really that great of a threat.
People are trained just fine. They choose to talk on the cell phone or dig through the purse, or ignore traffic signals and laws. It’s not about the training. It’s about an individual’s choice to ignore that training.
You’re right…a miniscule percentage of guns are used for putting down animals…but that’s not what they were designed for. They were designed to kill people. Most animals are put down with drugs. The percentage of guns that are actually used in defense from other people is even smaller. The government’s secret agenda, if it has one, wouldn’t be hiding behind the safety thing. It would be hiding behind the “why do we continue to have such as hideous problem with guns in this country and still do nothing about it.” That’s what you should be questioning, my friend.
Cite?
I don’t actually suspect you have any information that would lead you to make this conclusion - as you said, you hate guns.
Oh, and I’ll just take this time to ask you to go visit one of the many, many general gun control threads we have in GD. Just go ahead and use the search.
You’ve said several things that we see all the time in those sorts of threads that have been debunked quite a few times. Rather than repeating them all now, it’d be best if you read the previous arguments.