A friend of mine and I often talk about various hypothetical weapons technologies, and he’s come up with a few that sound plausible, but I’m not sure if they’d work.
The first is a smaller version of those expanding arrow heads. It would be used in shotgun the same way a slug is, only with a discarding sabot that would hold the blades in until after the bullet had exited the barrel.
The second, is a teardrop shaped slug with a hole through the center to allow air to pass through it. Of course, it would also need a discarding sabot to work, and the idea behind it is that it would travel faster to the target because of this.
The third is a bullet jacketed with carbon nanotubes. With this one, the thought is that the carbon nanotubes would prevent the slug from deforming when it hit something like metal or a bullet proof vest.
The fourth is a fragmentary bullet with a cesium core. Since pure cesium and water don’t mix, and humans are mostly water, well, you get the idea.
Arrows: They already make them, ‘they’ being various novelty manufactures that make ‘dragons breath’ and other goofy shotgun loads.
Hole-y Slug: They make ‘hollow’ less-than-lethal loads already. Problem is, (if you are looking to do maximum damage), the hole adds friction. Or something scientific like that, but you are increasing the surface area of the round.
Nanotubes: Blended alloy rounds are already available that don’t deform until they hit live-meat tempurature stuff. I have no idea how they pull off such devilry, but the rounds are already out there.
Possible, although I don’t think you would see an advantage over modern expanding projectiles already in use. Arrows use them so that they can still cause severe damage despite their low velocity.
What you’re describing here is pretty close to the PMC Ultramag ammo that was developed in the late 80s/early 90s. The projectile was a round airfoil that had a high muzzle velocity and good penetration. The ATF considered some variants of this ammo to be armor piercing.
I’m not an engineer and I don’t think this is the right forum for the feasibility of envention ideas, but:
I’ve little doubt that you could design a shotgun slug with little spring-out barbs, but why? First, I would suggest that they might adversely affect aerodynamics and shorten the effective range. Second, barbs are designed so the arrow or spear they’re attached to can’t easily be pulled back out through the entry wound, and will cause more damage when someone tries. The slug is likely to blow right on through – I doubt anyone would try to remove it in the field, and in a surgery they’d have the tools and techniques to remove it more safely.
If it is teardrop shaped, it doesn’t have a hole through it, so make up your mind. I don’t think this would work for pistol ammunition, it would seem to me to need rotation for stability. My gut feeling is that unless there were extremely tight (and expensive) manufacturing tolerances. imperfections in the tunnel and especially at its mouth would cause unven pressures resulting in less accuracy and more decelleration.
Sounds good to me. What about a nanotube vest?
I’ve been searching and failing to find something about how cesium might ract in body fluids. It;s clearly not reccommended, but I did find what looks like an MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet) which says:
That suggests to me the stuff may not be the best material for exploding bullets
Broadheads with mechanical blades are designed to increase damage to the animal, not to prevent removal. They don’t have the same purpose as the barb on a fishhook, for example.
They still rotate, as long as they were fired from a rifled barrel.
[VtM Joke] Goofy, huh? Well, don’t come to me for help the next time you have a pack of Brujah on yer tail. [/VTM Joke]
In complete seriousness, I’d be stunned to find out that anybody makes Dragon’s Breath rounds for any other reason than sale to Vampire The Masquerade fans.
No one has mentioned Hydra-Shocks yet. Are they still sold? They’ve got a pin inside the hollowpoint which supposedly helps expansion/penetration/stopping power. IIRC, they were available also in +P versions for .38s (li’l help here?), but I’m not sure if faster always equals better when stopping power is the goal. I don’t know if they actually have more stopping power than their normal hollowpoint counterparts.
As far as the OP, (new bullet technologies), I’ve always thought we should spend some effort developing caseless rounds. It seems like that would provide a significant advantage in the field; Both in weight savings, and reducing the apparatus necessary to eject spent cartridges. jmo
If you’re looking for a reaction with water, why not sodium? Of course, then you would have to make the shell airtight. There’s always phosphorous. Hmm, I think we already discussed mercury cores in another thread and found them unworkable.
IIRC, cesium reacts more violently to water than sodium does. If not cesium, then it’s one of the elements just below it on the periodic table. My friend originally suggested sodium, but we watched a movie in chemistry class when I was in high school where they dropped sodium in basically a punch bowl half filled with water. The sodium rolled around, boiling and giving off sparks. Then they dumped cesium into an identical punch bowl with water. It exploded.
MSDS’s are notoriously poor sources of information. It says nothing about what kind of cesium compound was applied to the bunnies eyes. It could have been one of the non-reactive compounds.
What about going back to powder horns? Or paper twists?
Seriously, I can only see three ways to have caseless ammunition
#1 Include the propellant on the cartridge as with the GyroJet. This cause various problems.
#2 Develop a new propelant. While we’d all love to have gauss rifles, it ain’t gonna happen any time soon. The wiring and batteries are huge and heavy. I can’t really think of a propellant that would work.
#3 Store gunpowder in a reservoir in the gun and install a mechanism to release it into the chamber in small amounts. This would make guns larger and more complex. It would add a large number of things that can go wrong- powder chamber will not open, powder chamber will not close, powder has become one big wet lump and must be removed, etc.
I knew I should have said railgun instead of Gauss rifle. When I said the wiring and batteries were huge, I was referring to guns which use a magnetic field to accelerate the projectile.
Re Voere rifle
I was unaware of such a thing. (I don’t know that much about guns) I can’t get the page to work properly. I get text, and two boxes with red Xs. A quick search didn’t really help.
How exactly, (I ask in complete seriousness) is this different from the minirockets of the Gyrojet? Is all the propellant used inside the chamber, or does the projectile burn propellant as it travels? Does it have the same trail of smoke problem the Gyrojet did?
Finally, I think the battery is a bad idea. If they could adapt the ammunition for use in standard M-16s, then maybe.
I don’t think this would work for pistol ammunition, it would seem to me to need rotation for stability. My gut feeling is that unless there were extremely tight (and expensive) manufacturing tolerances. imperfections in the tunnel and especially at its mouth would cause unven pressures resulting in less accuracy and more decelleration.