He did call it the first halfway plausible model. These are all details that can be hashed out in future models.
You can have the PIN stay active as long as the watch is actively worn, no need to renter the pin if you holster the gun, but it still won’t fire outside of your hand. The PIN would reset if you remove the watch.
I don’t see it going much of anywhere in a handgun. Accuracy will be crap because the first projectile will only have an inch and a half or maybe two of barrel. Also, IMHO, a tubular magazine is less convenient and more susceptible to damage than a standard side stacked arrangement. ETA: I also don’t envision the user being able to reload the tube themselves from a bulk box of ammo.
If the goal is caseless ammo, that should just as easily be accomplished with a standard magazine.
If, on the other hand, you’re trying to do away with the slide or cylinder of today’s designs I’d be interested in hearing why that might be desirable. Not saying that it couldn’t be, but nothing immediately comes to mind.
Yes.
This was in today’s Washington Post:
Maryland dealer, under pressure from gun-rights activists, drops plan to sell smart gun
Before I predicted that, in the future, hand-held guns will be safer.
Based on this news, I have another prediction. In the future, hand-held guns will be far less likely to be manufactured in the US. This is because, when smart guns do get to the point, in terms of both functionality and price, that they are widely desired, American gun makers will have no experience with the new technology.
There is also the Gyrojet. Hardly scifi; it’s from the 60s. But an interesting concept that didn’t go very far, but a good “what if” I guess. There are some other examples for underwater guns, but those usually use a mini-spear and not a lead bullet.
Since everything is electronic, you do away with all kinds of risks associated with mechanical devices. You of course have a fairly large risk with electronic devices as well. But It’s a lot cheaper to make. The barrels don’t have to be of the same quality of steel and done with the same precision in machining. Reloading is fast, though awkward. Just yank out the spent barrel from the rear, push in a new one.
Through the net, stacked cartridges appear to have greater potential as light field weapons (grenade launchers) and un-manned sentry weapons.
Caseless ammo coupled with handheld lightweight recoilless composite pistols. Rounds with greater energy (ft lbs) will become the norm as the recoil will be negated by design. Improved bullet design will improve expansion and fragmentation to the point where potential overpenetration of the high powered rounds on humans will be kept within FBI protocol.
Wait, what? Just because they don’t want a safe gun, other people can’t buy one either? How is this different from religious fundamentalism and homophobia? Death threats?
The trouble with man-portable nukes is keeping the blast-radius small enough to keep the user out of it. (The Davy Crockett, a man-portable nuclear mortar(?), famously had as step one in its deployment, “Dig a trench to hide from the blast in”, because the range was smaller than the blast radius. :smack:) And if it’s going to be that damn small, you’re not really adding all that much value over just shooting the bastard the old fashioned way.
IMO, for personal hand-weapons, we’ve pretty much hit the pinnacle of the basic concept with throwin’ lead. It’s just gonna be tweaks from here on out.
Kinetic weapons have another advantage over energy projectors. A bullet will push it’s way through the air and light obstructions and still deliver significant energy to its target. Lasers, particle beams, and the like tend to interact with the air starting right in front of the weapon and all the way to the target. So even if, the efficiency of the power projection is improved, the environment can and will still reduce the delivery of that energy to the target.
I’m imagining defeating a laser gun by clapping chalkboard erasers together.