# Future sidearms?



## Swami (May 4, 2015)

Hello, I'm new here and have a bit of an odd question, which I don't know if this is the right place to ask. I'm in the middle of writing a futuristic sci-fi and I'm trying to create plausible weapons, but I'm not that knowledgeable of firearms. The weapon I'm currently thinking of would need to be:

- Within the realm of known physics, assuming plausible advancements on a ~500-year timescale.
- Relatively small (a handgun).
- Capable of armor-piercing (specialized in taking down cyborgs of arbitrary size and strength with proportionally advanced armor)
- Allowable recoil is very high, as the wielder would be extremely strong. 

I'm leaning towards a coilgun/gauss design for extremely high velocity rounds, though I'm not sure on things like how fast a sufficiently futuristic bullet should go (10,000 feet per second? 20,000? More? Less?), what material/caliber the bullet would likely be (would a .50 cal handgun be too much? Not enough? Iridium/Osmium bullets? Is any of that necessary when talking about these kinds of velocities?), how much force such a bullet would deliver vs. penetrating power (I'm more interested in the bullet stopping/devastating the target rather than going clean through), a plausible feeding mechanism (I originally envisioned a revolver, because I like the western look and feel of it, but I was told it wouldn't be practical -- too few bullets that way), what it would look like for such a bullet to impact against an armored target (would the target be tossed back like a rag doll? Go right through with little energy transference?), and so on. Futuristic realism is extremely key to this.

Is there anyone here interested in exercising their creative muscles, preferably with a touch of physics tossed in, willing to offer me some advice/considerations? And again, if this isn't really the right forum or place for this kind of thing, please let me know. 

Thank you!


----------



## DJ Niner (Oct 3, 2006)

Not out of place at all; I remember having a few writers dropping in over the years and asking questions of the membership on the subject of weapons/effects for writing projects.

I guess my first question would be to ask if you are wedded to projectile-launching weapons due to plot involvement/advancement, or if directed-energy weapons would be considered. The reason I ask is because of the need to store and use energy to launch projectiles. Chemical energy (combustibles such as gunpowder) is the current favorite due to the problem with storing electrical or other forms of energy in a small person-portable launching device. If you are considering a coilgun/gauss design, that might lead some folks in your the audience (me, among them) to believe the electrical storage (or on-board generation) of power in a small device has been solved, at which point many folks believe that a jump to directed-energy (light, plasma, or some form of particle-beam) would be far more efficient for many/most uses (but not as exciting, perhaps). With an electrical-powered projectile-launching weapon, you now have two different items to run out of; projectiles and/or electrical energy to propel them. The biggest driver (even in current directed-energy weapon research by the U.S. Navy) is to reduce the logistics load of projectiles that must be stored and transported to the site of eventual use. This is just as important for a Navy destroyer as it is for a personal handgun/rifle. With ammo, your gun is an extension of your will and power to the limits of your practical accuracy. Without ammo, it's just dead weight; a poorly-balanced and relatively fragile club. Eliminate the solid projectile, and you eliminate the need to produce/store/distrubute and load them into the weapons, but you also might eliminate many plot avenues. Providing almost unlimited electrical power to personal weapons without need to "recharge" them also limits plotlines about running low on power for many other needs like light, heat, scanners/detectors and other devices.

Sometimes authors just gloss-over these issues with varying degrees of success; often, that level of success is dictated by how deeply intertwined the weapons (and the users) are in the storyline. If you're writing Military Sci-Fi about troops invading/defending planets, having your ducks lined-up when it comes to weapons and their effects will be critical. If it's only ancillary to the storyline, a lesser degree of involvement can and will be tolerated as long as no obvious/major muck-ups occur. 

Perhaps giving us a general idea of the setting, characters, and expected audience would help us to focus on the things that will be most important to you (to whatever degree you are comfortable revealing these details, of course).


----------



## DJ Niner (Oct 3, 2006)

I'll also add: if you stick with projectile weapons, there will be certain limits that will be difficult to stretch or break. Recoil of a powerful weapon may be the last thing to worry about, if the basic physics won't let us get to the capabilities you need for the storyline. Things like penetration, how the projectiles kill (needleguns with high rates of fire and large-capacity magazines poking lots of tiny holes in the subject, or big thundering boomers that knock gaping holes in all/most types of targets or carry explosive projectiles but must be reloaded often and fired much more slowly), and related subjects must be watched closely, lest the logistics or simple errors in weapon manipulation might overwhelm the story. Trajectory (bullet drop over great distances) complicates sighting/aiming, and atmospheric conditions such as humidity and wind can blow projectiles around quite a bit on a long shot.  Most all of this is avoided with directed-energy or particle-beam weapons.


----------



## Swami (May 4, 2015)

Thank you for the reply, DJ Niner! 

I would say that, no, I am not particularly wedded to anything for plot devices. I’m a firm believer that you can create an engaging and enticing plot without sacrificing realism. I'll also add that part of my quest here is to outline the kinds of technology I'm creating for this for the express purpose of avoiding those kinds of plot holes (wherein you can power a massive, energy hungry lightsabre, but somehow run out of battery power for your flashlight). I'm looking to create internal self-consistency (nothing is more aggravating than when a writer ignores his own universe's laws!).

One of the reasons I’m moving away from hand-held energy weapons (you’re right, by the way, that I’m assuming small-scale energy storage is no longer a limiting factor) is that I’m not entirely convinced of their utility.

Imagine, for example, a massive 10-foot-tall goliath of a man clad in thick metallic armor bearing down on you at a pace that would make an Olympian blush. Would a handheld energy weapon have the stopping power to penetrate the armor and/or stop the oncoming man at a distance of 20 to 100 feet away, all within a matter of seconds? And if it did, what energy output would be required to achieve that effect and what would it do to the immediate vicinity around the gun? 

I haven’t run the numbers yet, so I could be totally overestimating the physics here, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it made the area immediately surrounding the gun quite dangerous, possibly turning the atmosphere itself into a plasma at particularly high energy levels, and thus be just as dangerous to the wielder as to the target. Then there’s the issue of mirror surfaces that could greatly and, I suspect, fairly easily diminish the impact of an energy weapon like that. I’m certainly not an expert on energy weapons; they just seem “cooler” than they are practical, and even then only back when they were still a novelty (a la Star Wars, etc.). I’d be interested in hearing a counterpoint, mind you, and I am familiar with current experimental missile defense systems, etc., that use similar technology. I’m just uncertain how well they would scale to personal defense.

As for your comparison between a needlegun vs. a thundering boomer, I’d say I’m currently more inclined towards the boomer, but I could be convinced otherwise. My friend I consulted, who is in the military, prefers something more in the direction of the needlegun, assuming it could fire projectiles at sufficient velocity, which we can assume is simple.

For further context, this gun in particular is for use in close quarters, should be easily stored in a holster or in the person (think robocop’s embedded gun on his leg, perhaps), and is specifically designed to take down a target that might be a 10-foot-tall man, perhaps with a chest thickness of several feet which could be composed of thick armor (I’m also working out what a realistic future armor might look like), and then putting that person down with as much internal damage as possible (as I’m assuming full-on cyborgs, it’s not a given that critical organs like hearts, lungs, etc. or their analogues are where we would expect them to be. Thus, it’s important to do as much damage as possible). Also bear in mind that at least some of the scenes may well take place in space or in locations of varying atmospheric pressure, gravity and so on. Multiple scenes will take place on rotating space stations, which will completely screw with trajectory. Inside an atmosphere, I’m assuming the projectiles are relatively self-guiding. In space, probably not (unless someone is familiar with a simple guiding mechanism not reliant on an atmosphere. I don’t think a small-scale propulsion system in the bullet itself is viable).

At least, all of that is where I’m currently going, but the whole thing is a work in progress and I’m open to being convinced of different directions. Nothing is set in stone. This is a more traditional sci-fi, not a military sci-fi (I don’t have near the breadth of knowledge or experience to do that topic justice), but realism is nevertheless important to me.

Let me know if I can provide any further context.

Thanks again!


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

Swami said:


> ...Imagine, for example, a massive 10-foot-tall goliath of a man clad in thick metallic armor bearing down on you at a pace that would make an Olympian blush. Would a handheld energy weapon have the stopping power to penetrate the armor and/or stop the oncoming man at a distance of 20 to 100 feet away, all within a matter of seconds?...


Um, well, even if the weapon would stop this guy, his momentum (or inertia-your choice) would probably allow his corpse to run you down and crush the life out of you anyway, if you hit him while he was only 20 feet away.

And if the armor were a powered exoskeleton, you might kill the guy, but the device itself might keep on running autonomously until its atomic power-pack runs out of (radon?) gas.

The self-defense-teacher's suggestion, in such cases, would be that you not only shoot accurately, but that you also get out of the way. We call it "getting off of the 'X'."


----------



## rustygun (Apr 8, 2013)

Something like the Navy's electromagnetic rail gun on a smaller scale. A small projectile at extremely high velocity is very devastating.


----------



## BackyardCowboy (Aug 27, 2014)

thought for a handgun would be to use a heavy small slug, (like depleted uranium, shaped to mushroom and fragment after penetrating armor. Handgun would be like a rail gun, series of electromagnetic coils that accelerate the projectile. 
If they're cyborg types, consider having a larger projectile, which would mean fewer rounds in the hand gun and more frequent reloading with ammo magazines, but that have an electrical charge inside that releases once it penetrates the armor and cyborg's skin to 'fry' his electronics. Would not do much to stop his momentum. 
The ammo magazines would also have to have a battery component built in to operate the railgun, as otherwise you'd be changing ammo and battery packs under fire.
Consider a three or four man rifle squad, each has a component that connects and becomes a stand mounted rifle (like a recoil-less rifle) that handles larger projectiles and longer range. More likely to cancel the cyborg's forward momentum and possibly knock them backwards. One man is ammo carrier, the other two or three carry the rifle components.
A handgun that worked like a taser would not be a good idea, the borgs would just pull the wires out, but an electrically charged, high velocity 'dart' that would deliver an electrical shock to temporarily put them down might work IF it penetrates the armor to reach their hide.

What about a dart that's loaded with nannites that (over time) will infest a borg's electronics and if they hook up to a diagnostic scanner for their tech, it would infest the scanner and spread to other borgs that use the scanner? 
The nannites could have a set time after infesting where they'd take over the electronics and work against the borgs or be controlled by a signal from the "good guys" to fry their electronics.


----------



## CW (Mar 20, 2015)

1911a2 in 45 acp.

works for Heinlein.


----------



## PT111Pro (Nov 15, 2014)

Albert Einstein:
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."


----------



## Swami (May 4, 2015)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Um, well, even if the weapon would stop this guy, his momentum (or inertia-your choice) would probably allow his corpse to run you down and crush the life out of you anyway, if you hit him while he was only 20 feet away.


Good point! Yes, naturally whether we're talking bullets or energy weapons, the person's forward momentum will be sufficient enough to require the shooter to get out of the way.



rustygun said:


> Something like the Navy's electromagnetic rail gun on a smaller scale. A small projectile at extremely high velocity is very devastating.





BackyardCowboy said:


> thought for a handgun would be to use a heavy small slug, (like depleted uranium, shaped to mushroom and fragment after penetrating armor. Handgun would be like a rail gun, series of electromagnetic coils that accelerate the projectile.


Yes, that's pretty much exactly where I'm leaning right now, though my friend did make me rethink whether larger rounds like that are necessary or, since railguns can accelerate rounds to arbitrarily high speeds, heavier slugs may not be required - even a bullet the size of a grain of sand will do devastating damage if launched at a high enough velocity. Whether or not it will achieve what I want it to, however, I'm still trying to work out.

Anyone else have any opinions on large vs. small bullets in this context?

I also really like the idea of it releasing an electrical charge once it penetrates the armor, as well as nanites. In the case of an electrical charge, that would seem to lend itself well to a larger bullet like your mushroom design. Nanites could probably be packaged in any size ammunition (and probably even better for smaller, rapid firing bullets to disperse nanites throughout the target).

If larger bullets, I also lean towards Iridium/Osmium rather than depleted uranium - they're much denser, though I don't necessarily know how strong they are or how conducive they would be for bullets. Anyone familiar with those metals enough to know if they would be effective bullets? Many sites seem to indicate so, but without a lot of explanation beyond that they're more dense.

I may also borrow your 4-man squad idea for scenes involving soldiers. Thanks!


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

CW said:


> 1911a2 in 45 acp.
> 
> works for Heinlein.


1911*A1* (there is no "A2")

_Farnum's Freehold_, right?


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

In 500 years there will be a 1911A2,, a piece that just keeps proving itself over n over. Lol.

:smt033

Umm, I think that was the point, maybe not ,oops


----------



## CW (Mar 20, 2015)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> 1911*A1* (there is no "A2")
> 
> _Farnum's Freehold_, right?


Good Guess. 
But I'm thinking of his short stories - one on the moon years in the future.

Think 1911a1 with a *********, pickadilly, passamaquaddy.... oh whatever. 
Eventually they will find something to improve on a 1911a1 like adding a Keurick (sp?).

pic is on the right track.


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> 1911*A1* (there is no "A2")
> 
> _Farnum's Freehold_, right?


Sorry, Missed the Farnum's Freehold, I will be quiet now ,


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

Swami said:


> Hello, I'm new here and have a bit of an odd question, which I don't know if this is the right place to ask. I'm in the middle of writing a futuristic sci-fi and I'm trying to create plausible weapons, but I'm not that knowledgeable of firearms. The weapon I'm currently thinking of would need to be:
> 
> - Within the realm of known physics, assuming plausible advancements on a ~500-year
> 
> Thank you!


Think men in black......


----------



## CW (Mar 20, 2015)

OK..... for the space gun geeks....

A Whitney Wolverine


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

M1911a2 = Noisy Cricket

Of course!
Now, why didn't I think of that?

Excuse me for a moment... My shoe-phone is ringing.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

Quite a few years ago, I was more or less told to attend a Verbal Judo seminar / training course. 

They tried to make it sound like it was going to be the future weapon of LE. Those in LE all know how well that worked out. :smt014


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

Verbal Judo?
Ah... It's "The Force"!

Attention you must pay, young Jedi. This the future is.


"May the farce be with you!"
And, while we're at it, "Live wrong and fester!"


----------



## Smitty79 (Oct 19, 2012)

For an energy source, use mixing matter and anti-matter. The annihilation of one with the other produces energy on the lines of E=Mc^2. If I did the algebra and arithmatic right, it's about 20 billion times more energetic than dynamite. You could have some kind of magnetic suspension at the back of the bullet. I'd make the actual projectile some kind of "nano-engineered" composite, 10 times harder than diamond and denser than lead. I don't think that's actually possible. But a little suspension of reality is more fun than just using depleted uranium.


----------



## shaolin (Dec 31, 2012)

The most devastating handheld weapon ever conceived!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There is not a limit on the amount of energy a laser beam can contain so don't give up on watching this video until you concur.
Watch SNL Digital Short: Laser Cats From Saturday Night Live - NBC.com


----------



## BackyardCowboy (Aug 27, 2014)

Smaller bullets with higher energy may be more likely to penetrate completely thru the target, thereby not transferring as much energy into the target to cause damage. 
A heavier bullet at same or perhaps slightly less speed, may stay in the target longer or not over penetrate, transferring more or all the energy into the target = more damage.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

BackyardCowboy said:


> Smaller bullets with higher energy may be more likely to penetrate completely thru the target, thereby not transferring as much energy into the target to cause damage.
> A heavier bullet at same or perhaps slightly less speed, may stay in the target longer or not over penetrate, transferring more or all the energy into the target = more damage.


And there, gentlemen, in a nutshell, is the argument for using the .45 ACP cartridge!


----------



## DJ Niner (Oct 3, 2006)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> And there, gentlemen, in a nutshell, is the argument for using the .45 ACP cartridge!


It's also the reason that the .45 ACP is one of the easiest bullets to stop with a bullet-resistant vest.

Sticking with projectile weapons, I'd probably lean toward a small-bore weapon with various reactive projectiles; explosive/incendiary (contact-fused, or time/distance-delayed), chemical (poison), armor piercing, the above-listed nanobot idea (nice!), communications-scrambling, local-area EMP effects to interrupt powered systems or control devices (perhaps caused by a burst of electrical discharges when the projectile strikes a hard object), time-delayed area-denial mines, listening devices, seeker projectiles (electrical supply, O2, food/water, etc.), the-sky-is-the-limit. Use the future-tech imagination to explore various projectile types for both general and specialized missions.

Small-bore and high-velocity makes trajectory and moving-target leads more manageable at reasonable combat distances, while reducing the logistics/supply train (smaller = easier to carry/store/move more of them). Target effects are provided by the projectile type and tactical or strategic employment, not just basic mass- or diameter-times-velocity.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

DJ Niner said:


> It's also the reason that the .45 ACP is one of the easiest bullets to stop with a bullet-resistant vest...


Easy Solution: the Mozambique Drill.

One or two hits to the body, upper center-of-mass, and then one to the head...
That oughtta do it.

The body hits, even when stopped by armor, will usually cause the attacker to pause.
That gives you time to make the head shot.


----------



## Swami (May 4, 2015)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Easy Solution: the Mozambique Drill.


Potential problems, in the context of my story, is that a cyborg with a mass possibly upwards of several tons (and who may or may not feel pain) probably won't be stopped by bullets to the upper centre-of-mass, if those bullets don't penetrate and do damage. Further, their brain may not even be located in their head, even if you are to get off a headshot. More likely the brain, at least by my thinking, would actually be relocated nearer to their centre-of-mass, behind the thickest protection. Naturally I'm assuming fairly significant advancements to medical science to achieve this..


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

Sorry: Intellectual crossfeed!
Two separate conversations are going on in this thread, now.

Please ignore the stuff about the .45 ACP round, and about the Mozambique Drill.


----------



## DJ Niner (Oct 3, 2006)

I guess that would be the problem with fighting "designed" creatures/robots; you can opt to give the important pieces-parts more protection that mother nature/Darwin/G-d did, which can complicate the whole "stopping" problem.

For larger warfighting machines/devices, you might have to kill it in stages. First option: remove its mobility, anchoring it in place. This allows a kill later, at your convenience, while your forces can just move around and past it at a safe distance to achieve your goals. This can be done with weapons, concentrated at weak points in the design (in WWII, infantry would try to blow the tread off a tank, for instance), or pushing/luring them toward natural terrain features like swamps to get them stuck or water too deep to ford. 

Second option: you attack the sensors that allow the machine/device to fight. Concentrated rifle or machinegun fire on the WWII tanks' periscope/mirror blocks prevented them from being able to see where they were going, or find targets to engage. Taking out the lights, aiming lasers, or long-range cameras/sensors on more modern fighting machines can make them totally ineffective. Even today, I hear folks concerned about how our modern electronic rifle sights (Aimpoint/EOTech-type aiming devices) might react to a very high-energy close-range EMP pulse. Think about all our highly-trained troops suddenly losing their red-dots and thermal/night-vision scopes and reverting to back-up iron sights, against an enemy force who was more experienced with low-tech warfare.

Third option: attack the weapon itself. Bullets coming down the barrel the wrong way at high speed complicate loading/firing of almost any weapon. Rocket/missiles can be stopped by targeting their fuel, or damaging fins that control their path to the target. A simple plug introduced into the barrel of most modern projectile weapons will cause it to destroy itself on the next shot it fires. Damage the automatic reloading mechanism if visible/reachable.

Side note: I always thought it would be neat to have a defensive device that would "launch" enemy vehicles out of the area, perhaps into an escape-velocity trajectory (off planet). It could be anti-gravity-based, a hidden railgun-type launcher, or some other means of suddenly picking up an enemy vehicle or device and sending it far, far away.


----------



## Swami (May 4, 2015)

Thanks DJ! Some really good ideas there.

On the launching vehicles part, I actually recall a game - the Supreme Commander series, I believe - in which one of the armies has exactly what you're thinking of. Energy requirements aside, I think it's entirely viable for non-biological systems (drones, unmanned vehicles, etc.). However, the moment you plop a person into a catapult-like device that can launch an object with enough force to get it to escape velocity, you're pulling g-forces far in excess of what the human body can handle.

I'm currently researching ways around that limitation, mind you, such as fully submerging humans in a breathable liquid with a density approximately equal to water. If you do that, as I understand it, the liquid serves as a dampening system allowing humans to survive upwards of 50 gees or more, and might make your launcher quite practical.

Edit: I just reread your post. If launching *enemy* vehicles, obviously you don't have to worry about the survival of the occupants. Haha!


----------



## CW (Mar 20, 2015)

Swami said:


> ........ I'm currently researching ways around that limitation, mind you, such as fully submerging humans in a breathable liquid with a density approximately equal to water. If you do that, as I understand it, the liquid serves as a dampening system allowing humans to survive upwards of 50 gees or more, and might make your launcher quite practical. .....


You might try LCL in your EVA. _Neon Genesis Evangeleon_


----------



## Swami (May 4, 2015)

So with all the input so far, where I'm thinking of going with this is keeping relatively close to my original idea, of a relatively large/dense bullet fired by a single railgun approximately the size of a large handgun, with bullets that fire specialized ammo. I'll assume one version that fragments inside the target, and another special version that also releases a short, powerful EMP burst in the target.

Secondary weapons would be more like standard rifles, still railgun format, but that shoot extremely small, high velocity rounds, perhaps with a nanite coating that leaves trace amounts of the nanites in the target as the bullets pass through. These nanites could subsequently disable or kill, as desired, whatever they enter -- be it cybernetic or biological -- though doing so would not be immediate.

I'm aware that powerful weapons today often leave relatively small entrance wounds, but very large exit wounds, due to the rotational force of the bullet. However, am I safe in assuming that much smaller bullets at a much faster velocity would likely leave fairly clean and identical entrance and exit wounds?


----------



## Swami (May 4, 2015)

CW said:


> You might try LCL in your EVA.


Yep, exactly. To my knowledge there isn't yet a compound that actually exists that would simultaneously provide both the density and the breathability required (either one is easy, but both is hard), but that doesn't mean it's impossible. Then of course there's the consideration of how you utilize it -- on a spaceship, for example, that might be accelerating for months or years, do you fill a single room with the stuff, strap yourself in, and wait for the battle/acceleration to be over? Or do you fill the entire ship with it?


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

Swami said:


> ...I'm aware that powerful weapons today often leave relatively small entrance wounds, but very large exit wounds, due to the rotational force of the bullet. However, am I safe in assuming that much smaller bullets at a much faster velocity would likely leave fairly clean and identical entrance and exit wounds?


I believe that what you postulate is _not_ a safe assumption.

A small-diameter projectile, travelling very fast, would enter cleanly enough, but then the "water-and-meat bag" it encounters may make it do some pretty wild things. A very slight variation in its path, compared to the orientation of the "meat bag," could make it tumble, fragment, or wobble. It might even not exit at all.
The shorter the range, the more likely a "neat" exit hole, I believe...although I'm not really expert at that. You might check out bullet-wound monographs by Dr. Marvin Fackler, or the Thompson-LaGarde tests. Google will help you.


----------



## Swami (May 4, 2015)

Interesting. Thanks Steve, I will definitely be looking into those references! (And again, thanks to everyone -- I'm getting lots of useful information here).


----------



## CW (Mar 20, 2015)

You might want to consider anti-tank rounds that rely on kinetic energy.

Shape+speed may cause the round to go completely through the target,

but then the stuff the target is made out of has to make a path for the projectile.

A body is kinda squishy and a projectile going fast enough may indeed go clean through. But hit bone or body armour and something more solid has to move.

In a tank the moving metal heats and becomes molten spall often igniting ammo in the tank - hence the blown off turrets with holes clean through them seen in Iraq.

When hitting a body, shock trauma becomes a potent part of the equation. Although water doesn't compress, there is also air in the body which effects results.
Custom ammo for the target type is very important. Your nanite [or toxin] idea is pretty good - may work on cyborgs as well as human.

But then you need to consider - are there any rules of war? Sci-Fi Survival removes many barriers, 
but I think you still have to avoid cubical projectiles (1860's Puckel Gun)


----------



## Swami (May 4, 2015)

I'm assuming no significant rules of war, actually. Can you explain what you mean by cubical projectiles and the Puckel Gun (I'm somewhat familiar with it, but not in this context)?


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

The Puckle Gun was a 17th-century "invention" much like a huge revolver. It came complete with two cylinders: One for round bullets, to use against "Christians"; and one for cubical bullets, for use against "heathens."
There's a sample in the Tower of London collection.
Google will help you with this, too.


Use Google a lot: My daughter works there.


----------



## CW (Mar 20, 2015)

Thanks Steve for the extra info.

When you're from the piedmont, you assume just about anything black powder is US Civil War related.

Except a Baker.


----------



## PT111Pro (Nov 15, 2014)

"In the year 2025"
The trend goes more to automatic. Everything have to be automatic no one want to learn anything anymore.
I'll think that will affect also the weapons.

I'll think it will be more computer based. If Person A want's to shoot Person B than Person a goes to his/her PDA types the SSN of Person B into the PDA, takes the weapon and fires a self propelled bullet out of a device. The bullet flys out the window and stops, checks with the online data bank where person B is at the moment is located, lets say in a Restaurant. The bullet flyes to the restaurant and waits in front of the door until Person B exit the restaurant. The projectile checks the personal electronic chip that the people than have to carry in the forehead and hit's Person B if it is a mach. After penetrating the projectile explodes.

All without going off the chair convenient behind the computerscreen. Clean and fast and enables the shooter any denial that is necessary to stay in a good conscience. After the bullet hit ABC TV online reports that SNN XYZ was terminated in front of a XXX Restaurant.


----------



## DJ Niner (Oct 3, 2006)

PT111Pro said:


> "In the year 2025"
> The trend goes more to automatic. Everything have to be automatic no one want to learn anything anymore.
> I'll think that will affect also the weapons.
> 
> ...


I'd think a bullet loitering outside a restaurant door might draw some attention from the cops.

Depends on the neighborhood, I suppose...


----------



## DJ Niner (Oct 3, 2006)

Most projectiles are designed to stay point-forward when flying through the air, but when they enter a more dense medium, all that goes right out the window. They will tumble, bend, veer off-course, glance off internal structures and change direction, and even shear in half, depending on their velocity at impact. 

The best bet for a straight-through penetration with clean (and similarly-sized) entrance and exit holes would probably be a non-spin-stabilized projectile, with the projectile's mass well forward of the center of gravity. Think "heavy dart"; search for the penetrator dart used in modern tanks for an example. Fins need not be used to stabilize the projectile in flight if it is nose-heavy enough and the base is hollow to move the center of gravity forward; a smooth-bore airgun pellet would be the best example of this I can come up with. Basically, shoot the target with a short, dense, nose-heavy spear at high velocity to get the cleanest entrance and exit holes, but the projectile will almost always bring some "stuff" out with it when it exits, and this can and does enlarge the exit hole to some extent.


----------



## Swami (May 4, 2015)

Good information, thanks. And you believe this would hold true even for extremely fast moving projectiles? A projectile moving at 10,000 to 20,000 feet per second (or even vastly more -- 50,000+?), for example? That's significantly faster than traditional bullets and would reduce the time in the body to a very short window. I would expect the faster it goes, the more momentum it will have (requiring more energy from obstacles in the way to shove it off course) and the less chance it has of veering significantly of course due to much less time spent in the body, though perhaps that's a mistake.


----------



## DJ Niner (Oct 3, 2006)

No, I think you'd be right on that, in most cases. But at those speeds, you're going to get what one of the older gunwriters called "the snowplow effect"; whatever the projectile passes through, upon exiting, some of the substance will be thrown off to the sides and the rear of the exit hole, in the direction of the projectile's departure. In smaller soft/squishy targets, the pressure wave from that kind of speed using a normal bullet-shaped projectile will literally blow the target apart, like what happens to a snowdrift when a V-shaped snowplow barrels into it 60+ MPH.

An example of this pressure wave's power comes back to me from my teen years. We used to put full food cans (dented/swelling cans from the local grocery store, bought for pennies a can) on top of fence posts and shoot them with .22 rifles to see the cans pop and jump. If you used a Stinger super-high-velocity .22 hollow-point, it would pop the can so violently that the bottom of the can would often bear the grain pattern of the top of the wood post, from being forced down against the post when the can popped from the pressure of the .22 HP.

EDIT: take a few minutes to watch these slow-motion videos to get a better idea of how hard and soft targets react to bullets:






(depending on your musical tastes, you may want to watch these with the sound muted)


----------



## CW (Mar 20, 2015)

Yet if you shoot a compound bow with a spritzer pointed arrow, it could go clean through the can.

I remember the demo where a guy shot at a balloon on the other side of a sandbag. The bullet stopped in the sand quickly.
He then shot an arrow which went through the bag and struck the balloon.

The physics behind that helped form the modern anti-tank-round darts that elongate in flight.

Projectile physics are very interesting with many variables. Tank ammo evolution is one train of development to explore.

AP
HE
HESH
HVAP
APFSDSDU

One of the latest rounds has so many letters they just called it the Silver Bullet.


----------



## CW (Mar 20, 2015)

One of my sci-fi weapon pipe dreams was a rail-gun type that fired an almost black-hole.

The mass-pulser propelled the gravatron-thingy particle which was at an almost critical mass. As it flew towards its target, it would literally suck the atoms in from the very air it went through.

When it struck the target, it would rip the mass apart, draw it in, reach critical mass and wink out of existence with a thunderclap.

The gun would use gravity wells to hold and regulate the amount of black hole created and projected in order to destroy the target.

Range would be limited - except in space where range would be much greater.

Energy defense fields would likely be useless.


----------



## Swami (May 4, 2015)

CW said:


> Yet if you shoot a compound bow with a spritzer pointed arrow, it could go clean through the can.
> 
> I remember the demo where a guy shot at a balloon on the other side of a sandbag. The bullet stopped in the sand quickly.
> He then shot an arrow which went through the bag and struck the balloon.


Interesting. You wouldn't happen to recall any videos or anything with this, would you?



CW said:


> One of my sci-fi weapon pipe dreams was a rail-gun type that fired an almost black-hole.
> 
> The mass-pulser propelled the gravatron-thingy particle which was at an almost critical mass. As it flew towards its target, it would literally suck the atoms in from the very air it went through.
> 
> ...


So this is actually interesting. If you were to create a tiny point-mass capable doing what you're requesting, the first problem you're going to face is degenerate matter like that - whether a kind of neutron-dense material or a singularity - is going to decay very fast. The energy output in the first 10 minutes, if neutron matter, would be equivalent to about 13 tons of TNT, as I understand it, and it would be continuous.

The whole thing would take up about a teaspoon in terms of volume but weigh 2 billion tons.

If you sat exactly 3.5 metres away from this, you would experience a force exactly equal to the Earth. So if it were directly overhead, you would levitate (actually, that's partially a lie. Your head would experience no gravity, but your feet would still experience ~0.6 gees towards the Earth). Now at 1 meter away, we're now pulling 12 gees towards that mass, which is past the point air force pilots generally lose consciousness. At half a meter away, we're pulling 50 gees, meaning we're already probably dead.

Moreover, something weighing 2 billion pounds can't simply be held. It will crush anything you touch it with. A gravity well is problematic, since this point-mass actually *is* the gravity well. You can't polarize it, because it's neutron matter, so to my knowledge it has no polarity by definition (and even if you could, you'd still need enough energy to magnetically levitate 2 billion tons). And if you wanted to *move* it in some given direction, well, it gets even more complicated.

In short, I see some technological hurdles with this tech!

There are some creative attempts to do what you're thinking of, though. For example, the game Mass Effect has a bionic singularity power that's basically exactly what you say. There's also similar weapons in the new Marvel films, both in Guardians of the Galaxy and in the most recent Thor movie. However, I think those techs will likely remain in the field of soft sci-fi.


----------



## CW (Mar 20, 2015)

That's the problem with Sci-fi and fantasy,

Fantasy gets the cooler guns.

Normally I do better with a barbed strangler or warp lance.


----------



## BackyardCowboy (Aug 27, 2014)

okay, composite bullet with a tiny micro-microscopic amount of antimatter in a tiny magnetic bottle. Upon impact, the power supply for the mag bottle is disrupted or destroyed allowing the antimatter to come in contact with the normal matter. bad guy decimated.
But if ammo dump is hit, will probably lose the world or asteroid the ammo dump is on.


----------

