No.52234 [View All]
Ima newb to this /cyber/ thing. I tend to get to websites and communities late so this place is looking a little down. That said, what are ya'll'ses ideas on rail pistols? That shit wouldn't have to go far but have a good point-blank impact. Also would be super cyber.
____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.53560
>>53559
…refresh pwnd, this is the image of the prototype I found.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.53630
>>53560
It desperately needs a scope for that Kraut Space Magic look.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.53631
Here's south african vector CP1
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.53632
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.53638
>>53630
Holographic red dot, 45° cant RIS mount or gtfo
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.53639
>>53559
>I'm gonna go on a whim and guess this kind of variant would look way less like a pistol and more like a gigantic benchtop rifle.
Or a flamethrower, batteries on the back and "rifle" on hands
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.54748
I'm surprised there hasn't been some minor research into railguns as "strategic" weapons rather than either man-portable replacements for service rifles or giant naval guns
like, why not just something like a mortar or grenade launcher? those things don't have particularly striking muzzle velocity as it is, and if it's something mounted to a vehicle then the problem of batteries is irrelevant (since you already have an alternator charging up the car's battery and supplying juice to all kinds of active optics and laptops and radios and shit). But going from powder to magnets still offers the advantages of caseless ammo and smoother recoil
>>53559
>coil timing stuff
this is an overcomplicated solution. multistage coilguns irl mostly use optical triggers instead of timing circuits, and if using coils you can still use a conventional (but nonconductive) barrel that can be rifled anyway.
>>53638
>muh amerikansky CoDmans attachments
shut the fuck up faggot
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.54752
>>54748
>I'm surprised there hasn't been some minor research into railguns as "strategic" weapons rather than either man-portable replacements for service rifles or giant naval guns
Rail guns by their nature are a limited use product.
>they require complex electromechanical systems
artillery requires a breachblock, a barrel and a stable surface
>they require immense amounts of power
on ships this makes sense, and over the horizon firing solutions are ideal, but explaining the complexities of naval warfare would require several dozen posts at a minimum, so the tl:dr is that initial energy input in chemical factories is more efficient for combat purposes than on site power generation for weapons use. The only strategic benefit railguns provide is the reduction of explosive hazards (carrying around a fuckton of kaboom).
Other considerations in the design of munitions need to be considered, a sabot can increase the velocity, and some conventional munitions use that idea, but the way a railgun works means that it is really only good for kinetic energy strikes at longer ranges (that you can just as easily use missiles/rockets for) without having to change an entire configuration.
On land, rail guns are even more useless, because conventional troops must carry ammunition AND batteries, using mechs/exoskeletons/robot assistance might one day solve those problems, but as of today, smaller, lighter, and more precise is the doctrine of combat (read about future combat in megacities) the idea of future combat also means that things like large rail gun artillery is a bad idea for transportation, set up space and effect, look at the battle of grozny for examples of artillery in urban warfare.
As for anti-tank weapons, you are using shaped charges to produce blast/penetration effect, which is a specific characteristic of high explosives that cannot be reproduced with railguns. That means that railguns need to be able to reach higher muzzle velocities just to get enough energy to get comparable damage to a small explosive charge.
If I had to take a guess about man portable rail guns, I think fuel cells may be one method of power generation (if we can figure out how to maximize efficiency in electrical systems). But then we would end up with mass effect style fueled guns that shoot small pellets at incredibly high speeds.
High velocity ammunition has been tried with conventional munitions too, with the US airforce having produced projectiles to fly at speeds higher than 4000fps
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.54757
>>54752
You missed the entire point of my post, and then said a bunch of other dumb shit, and thus I must surmise that you are a retarded gay nigger
>Rail guns by their nature are a limited use product.
All guns are. All machinery is.
>artillery requires a breachblock, a barrel and a stable surface
first off it's "breech" and modern artillery pieces have a lot of moving parts. Even the barrel moves around to limit recoil and sometimes as part of the loading/unloading process.
A chief advantage of electromagnetic weapons is that they feature very few moving parts, and few of those have to do any heavy work.
>The only strategic benefit railguns provide is the reduction of explosive hazards (carrying around a fuckton of kaboom).
The point of EM weapons is not to eliminate explosive rounds, and you are an illiterate retard if you didn't get that I was saying to use explosive payloads at lower velocities, similar to modern grenade launchers and mortars.
>a sabot can increase the velocity,
I don't think you get the point of sabots. That's not the point of a sabot at all. All a sabot does is makes it so the round can make a seal and go down the bore properly for stuff like finned projectiles.
>On land, rail guns are even more useless, because conventional troops must carry ammunition AND batteries,
>using mechs/exoskeletons/robot assistance might one day solve those problems,
Have you ever heard of this thing called a "truck"?
>As for anti-tank weapons, you are using shaped charges to produce blast/penetration effect, which is a specific characteristic of high explosives that cannot be reproduced with railguns.
Why not? You can't lob a grenade electromagnetically? Are you one of those retards who thinks the only way a rail or coil gun can do damage is through ~hypervelocity~ rods from god bullshit?
>If I had to take a guess about man portable rail guns,
>MASS EFFECT
It looks like you are one of those retards. PROTIP: the shift towards smaller, faster rounds in the modern era isn't because there's a greater energy-to-target in the end. .223/5.56 is actually much less "damaging" than its predecessors like .308 and 30-06. What was realized is that it's better to carry more bullets because you go through a fuckin' lot of them, and you can carry more 5.56 in a pocket than you can carry 7.62. 5.56 was selected since it's fairly high velocity, resulting in a flat trajectory, making it easy to use even at distances probably more appropriate for larger rounds. Your concept of "smaller, lighter, and more precise" is actually entirely wrong, the US keeps trying to shift back to bigger rounds (and then giving up in the face of how much 5.56 they still have to use up somehow) and doctrine has shifted more and more to volume of fire and suppress-and-move tactics over sniper duels and aimed slow fire from entrenched positions as it used to be in trench warfare. In any case, the decision on what size round to use is more complicated than "muh miniaturization muh hypervelocity". If that were the case, everyone would be running around with rifles chambered in .22 Eargesplitten-Loudenboomer.
Also you're a shazbot for thinking fucking Mass Effect of all things is realistic. Jesus Chris
>High velocity ammunition has been tried with conventional munitions too,
What do I give a shit? My point was to replace low velocity shit like grenade launchers and light mortars attached to trucks and such
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.54758
>>54757
>modern artillery pieces have a lot of moving parts.
so does an auto-loading rail gun, and when you have fire control systems and loading systems that require space, you get about an equivalent complexity with more electronics.
>The point of EM weapons is not to eliminate explosive rounds, and you are an illiterate retard if you didn't get that I was saying to use explosive payloads at lower velocities, similar to modern grenade launchers and mortars.
the benefit of size is lost by having a huge electric system (same as with small-arms rail guns)
>All a sabot does is makes it so the round can make a seal and go down the bore properly for stuff like finned projectiles.
This is often to maximize ballistic efficiency (like to accelerate a projectile more)
>Have you ever heard of this thing called a "truck"?
We have tanks, those are artillery on tracks, and we have artillery that can be moved by aircraft, right now the largest concerns are fuel and munitions, having to completely overhaul those to have large capacitor banks is dumb because conventional munitions perform their jobs well for what it takes to move them around.
>Are you one of those retards who thinks the only way a rail or coil gun can do damage is through ~hypervelocity~ rods from god bullshit?
Given existing weapon systems, this is the only usefull reason to have them, like others have pointed out, chems work fine unless we run into a "no more chemical" situation.
>PROTIP: the shift towards smaller, faster rounds in the modern era isn't because there's a greater energy-to-target in the end. .223/5.56 is actually much less "damaging" than its predecessors like .308 and 30-06.
NATO demonstrated that several decades ago, that is no new news. terminal ballistics were not the question of big bullet/small bullet, the idea was to have lethal projectiles in a man portable configuration, in case you are wondering, that data comes from pic related
>Also you're a shazbot for thinking fucking Mass Effect of all things is realistic.
The example was to explain how fuel calls could potentially be used (load a clip of rods/pellets, eject a cell and run a new one in once the gun stops working)
>My point was to replace low velocity shit like grenade launchers and light mortars attached to trucks and such
There is a lot of other hardware in military vehicles that draws power, also having to run an engine just to use weapons can be fatal, because no gas/broken engine = no defense. railguns are and probably will remain high velocity long range kill weapons instead of grenade launchers. an M203 or Mk19 has very few functional parts compared to other weapons, and having to invent an entire electrical system (like a chaingun) just to be able to do something that is already done reasonably well is pointless unless there is reasonable gain (which there is not).
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.54759
>>54758
>so does an auto-loading rail gun,
In your mind, something that has to load a round, hit it with a pin right in the middle of the shell or on its rim, and then keep the shell while firing the bullet/grenade/whatever, and successfully discard the shell when it's re-opened is going to be less mechanically complicated than something that doesn't have to handle the shell at all?
Nigga is you stupid?
>right now the largest concerns are fuel and munitions,
Yeah like what if you could carry more of those things by making your rounds smaller while not changing the actual size of the bullet? And then you could use the space you would have used for all those shells and powder for more fuel and more bullets? That would be stupid. Don't do that.
>Given existing weapon systems, this is the only usefull reason to have them,
You're a retard. There are many more advantages than that – reducing the profile of the weapon itself, using a replenishable resource to fire the thing, reducing the size of rounds to just the bullet, eliminating a lot of noise and flash, having a smoother recoil, there's lots of advantages beyond just "le rods from le god :^)" reddit-tier tech wankery based on video games.
>an M203 or Mk19 has very few functional parts
the Mk19 is probably one of the least reliable weapons fielded by NATO countries exactly because it has a shitload of moving parts and a lot of potential failure points. If anything, it would be ideal to replace that big heavy ammo belt fed gun that jams when you look at it funny with something that features a lot fewer moving parts and a potentially simpler loading mechanism.
>BBBUT ITS ELECTRICAL SO ITS COMPLICATED
Why does making something motor-driven instead of gas(hydraulically)-driven suddenly make it totally unworkable and too complicated for mere mortals to build or maintain?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.54769
>>54759
>In your mind, something that has to load a round, hit it with a pin right in the middle of the shell or on its rim, and then keep the shell while firing the bullet/grenade/whatever, and successfully discard the shell when it's re-opened
this is usually an immediate if not continuous mechanical process, as is the loading assembly on the BAE system railgun.
>Yeah like what if you could carry more of those things by making your rounds smaller while not changing the actual size of the bullet?
it is easier to carry one thing than to carry two sets of things (clips or magazines are easier than electrical source and projectiles)
>There are many more advantages than that
>reducing the profile of the weapon itself
no, in fact the electrical system is quite large
>using a replenishable resource to fire the thing
incorrect, electricity is an energy carrier, not an energy producing system (like chemical reactions or kinetic systems like generators- that run on diesel/bunker fuel)
>eliminating a lot of noise and flash
this is arbitrary, silencers can do the same, and supersonic projectiles still produce supersonic concussions
>having a smoother recoil
not really a problem with large ships or buffered systems
>the Mk19 is probably one of the least reliable weapons fielded by NATO countries exactly because it has a shitload of moving parts
proofs?
>BBBUT ITS ELECTRICAL SO ITS COMPLICATED
most modern deck guns are electric, and small arms are mechanical, and logistics is a major driver in any fleet tactical decision. You can give any guy a blueprint and have him cut some metal to fit when a part breaks, but getting a precision machined atate-of-the-art rail or a huge custom capacitor is not as easy
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.54776
>>52234
>have a good point-blank impact
If it has enough velocity to have enough impact at close range, it's likely got enough velocity to go far, unless you decide to shoot dice.
I'm personally more fond of bolters (read: rocket launcher guns). They're also likelier to happen within our lifetime than rail pistols. Alas, bolters had a go at reality a bit too early and now everyone's scared to try again.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.54777
>>54769
>it is easier to carry one thing than to carry two sets of things
What is this second set of things that is not already being carried? a charging source? trucks and tanks have alternators already expected to run lots of gear like radios, computers, large lights, etc. Batteries? again, they have their own batteries for the car's systems and UPSes for the gear carried. The gun itself and its own moving/electronic parts? not much different from carrying literally any other weapon.
>electricity generation potential and storage are not resources
>militaries already widely issue silencers
>the crack of a supersonic round is somehow as loud as or louder than the crack of a supersonic round and literally any other noise
>still going on about ships when my example was literally a mortar bound to a humvee or command truck
you are illiterate and insist on things as dumb as A+1=A and cannot tell the difference between a light mortar and a naval gun! you are a redditoid nigger and probably a kike!
btw
>You can give any guy a blueprint and have him cut some metal to fit when a part breaks, but getting a precision machined atate-of-the-art rail or a huge custom capacitor is not as easy
you're delusional if you think this is how militaries work also it stops being "custom" if it's a standard mass-produced good that gets stocked up on. y'know, like militaries do with literally everything else that they use
you are fucked in the head by video games and movies
>>54776
>bolter
gyrogets were trash and will be forevermore and also 40k is worse than furry trash
also modern rocket launchers do basically the same thing, but with a proper full size warhead that is worth strapping a rocket to. though it's more for operator safety and reliability of the rocket to clear whatever it's launched from properly than for ballistics to feature boosters like that
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.54778
>>54777
>modern rocket launchers do basically the same thing
Modern rocket launchers don't have a 30 round magazine (or 10-12 if pistol form), and they don't fit into my pants either. They also aren't legal for civilians and quite hard to get on the black market.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.54780
>>54777
>gyrogets were trash
it was a sound concept for space warfare and shooting underwater until supercavitating rounds got to the market a few years ago
>What is this second set of things that is not already being carried?
system integration for vehicles is based on electrical load, if you had to stop the vehicle to charge a weapon or else sacrifice other electronic systems, you loose the combat edge.
>you're delusional if you think this is how militaries work also it stops being "custom" if it's a standard mass-produced good that gets stocked up on. y'know, like militaries do with literally everything else that they use
stock systems do not have unlimited capacity, and spending brouzouf on high cost components versus buying a lot of small easily replaceable parts (like firing pins, bolts etc.) is an easy decision from a policy standpoint (talking on the order of millions of units)
take the US F35 program for example, millions were wasted on a pet project to solve a problem that had proven solutions that cost a lot less (while debatable, that was the general short of it) .
also military standards mean that manufacturers literally do just give blueprints to literally anybody who can meet the contract requirement. Introduce high cost and precision items, and the market gets monopolized by companies with proprietary methods and technologies.
Imagine if every gun could only be manufactured by one company because they alone hold the patent on the battery manufacturing technique for it. you end up in a situation where a single company can charge whatever it wants because it is the sole sales point of that weapon.
The only way rail guns would make sense is if you designed a vehicle around the idea of the gun (not adding the gun onto a vehicle) and that system had more economically replaceable parts where you can justify a $10000 barrel instead of a $1000 barrel because it can shoot more than 10 times as much with equal or better performance.
the two part argument also was intended to mean that having two inputs to get one output of the weapon firing is worse than one input to get one output when weight is concerned.
also
>big expensive gun
>on a command vehicle
want to know how you dont know about the military?
the military is all about quantifying life from a financial standpoint, just because it performs better in isolated test ranges does not mean that it will meet every need service wide. Field units will find a way to break something (when the technician puts a capacitor on backwards after 3 days of watch with no sleep) and the entire weapon breaks during diagnostics is a higher cost than not putting a mount pin in and then doing it during a routine check.The type of people you are dealing with are the ones who put tape on the safety override switch for high powered electrical/radio because it was inconvenient to have the system constantly cutting out when people are in harms way. Weapons are no acception.
If every breakage had to be fixed by the factory, then you have two options
>carry at least one of every spare part to replace if needed
>return the weapon to get fixed
the first is more economical in combat, but carrying spare parts increases weight carried by troops.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.54781
>>54778
>30 round mag of shit that's not even a 10th as effective
yeah, why not just carry this
you got 30+1 rounds in a handgun
quite the effective war tool, no?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.54782
I know pic related is airsoft, but if you could make it work with a real gun, it would beschway
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.54786
>>54780
>it was a sound concept for space warfare
This sounds counterintuitive. Why would a bullet self-propelled by prolonged combustion work better in the void, than some initial impulse gun that can produce the combustion in a more controlled environment? Why not actually fucking Gauss or rail guns, which do not require oxygen, or even fucking slingshots?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.54787
>>54786
The idea deals with the recoil force, as an equal amount of force is exerted on both the projectile and the shooter when a gun is fired. In space there are no counterforces to prevent rearward movement,so the gun pushed the shooter one direction and the bullet the other. With a gyrojet, the projectile goes in one direction, and the shooter remains in place since the rocket propels itself instead of relying on another force to propels it.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.54788
>>54787
> In space there are no counterforces to prevent rearward movement
Eugene Stoner isn't so much rolling in his grave as sobbing softly.
Recoil action is not the only way a gun can cycle. In fact, it's a pretty rare and, inversely, very lazy way to do it. And every way but straight recoil action actually lessens recoil a lot.
Even plain blowback can be harnessed to increase stability. Pic fucking related.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.54790
>>54780
>shooting underwater until supercavitating rounds got to the market a few years ago
Oh you mean the technology used in modern torpedoes, rather than the now paractically ancient piston-based underwater rounds employed by both the soviets and nato? fuck off retard nigger poseur
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.54791
>>54780
>if you had to stop the vehicle to charge a weapon
Do you have to stop your vehicle to charge the car battery?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.54792
>>54780
>take the US F35 program for example,
>Imagine if every [weapons platform] could only be manufactured by one company
really things me hmmm thinks
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.54793
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.54796
>>54786
which do not require oxygen
modern cartridges have oxidizers as part of the propellant mixture, they do not require air to fire.
>>54790
Supercavitating small arms ammunition is new, you can use it as a conventional round or as a surface/subsurface or subsurface/surface or underwater round with any standard NATO firearm
also torpedoes usually rely on rocket fuel, propulsors, or have a specialized piston engine, iirc china also made a bootleg version of the US mk48 that uses a soduim warhead as the payload (instead of explosives it uses a volatile chemical reaction to do damage) the propulsion system does not rely on supercavitation.
There are supercavitating torpedos, but those are roughly the military equivalent of hypersonic glide missiles in the air
>>54791
take a look at the capacitor bank for the BAE railgun
pic unrelated
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.54797
>>54796
hypervelocity research is not new, torpedoes dont use i4s, and you are a giant shazbot who literally cannot tell the difference between a base's defensive grenade launcher and a capitol weapon fitted to a literal battleship
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.54800
>>54797
>hypervelocity research is not new
never said it was, but supercavitating bullets have only been on the market since around after 2012.
>capitol weapon
literally no such thing
>between a base's defensive grenade launcher
changing the goal posts are we? artillery is not a defensive weapon, it is artillery
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.54801
>>54800
>changing the goal posts are we?
Wow!
>>54748
>like, why not just something like a mortar or grenade launcher?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.54803
>>54800
>supercavitating bullets
literally not a thing outside of water btw
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.54804
>>54803
>Our patented technology enables us to design patterns and methods of calculating supercavitating ammunition that stabilises in water by its cavity and by rotation in the air.
it works in both
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.54805
>>54804
thats not what supercavitation refers to at all. just like with sabots, you have been consumed by memes, thinking that seemingly complicated "military words" just make things better.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.54806
>>54805
>Supercavitation is the use of cavitation effects to create a bubble of gas or vapor large enough to encompass an object travelling through a liquid, greatly reducing the skin friction drag on the object and enabling high speeds.
literally what the projectile does
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.54807
>>54806
In air, what gas pocket is the projectile creating that replaces air?
Is it somehow creating vacuum before it?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.54808
>>54807
It could be boiling the water as it passes, which would generate vapour. I am not convinced this would work, or even stabilize the bullet, though.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.54809
>>54808
>It could be boiling the water as it passes, which would generate vapour
Riding a literal fucking ｖａｐｏｒｗａｖｅ.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.54810
>>54808
>It could be boiling the water as it passes,
Through normal air? Above the surface? And going through a big cloud of steam makes it faster than going through normal air? hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
>>54809
now you're thinkign with shitposts!!!! at least this is funny
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.54811
>>54810
It doesn't sound like it would be as noticeable as the same thing underwater, but I suspect hyperheating air could indeed reduce its density. Doesn't sound like it would be very useful, though.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.54812
>>54811
I disagree; without containment, you can't superheat anything, at all, ever, since it's a necessary part of the concept of superheating, and heating any given bulk of air at all would increase ambient pressure (since the hot air would expand, and push outwards in all directions, including upon itself internally, though equalizing quickly) and probably impact humidity in a way negative to ballistics by making more water vapours form (since, naturally, it's warmer and other environmentals have stayed the same, resulting in getting closer to evaporation/pyrolysis/gasification points of literally everything that wasn't already a vapor/giving off fumes/outright gaseous)
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.54813
Would handheld railguns, especially pistols, need to worry about projectile stability all that much for anti-personnel purposes? They fire what are essentially flechettes, and would likely be thinner than most bullets. Having them tumbling through the air would mean they cause more damage to people and make them less likely to penetrate through a wall and hit someone behind.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.54814
>>54812
>and push outwards in all directions
The air at the tail of the projectile would be warmer than the air at the tip. That should give it some really small push, sort of like a warp drive.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.54815
>>54814
>The air at the tail of the projectile would be warmer than the air at the tip.
Why? The air at the tip is being continually compressed; at its tail, it only has gunpowder behind it, and in this thread, really, should have nothing at all, being electromagnetically propelled and all.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.54816
>>54815
>Why?
Simply by virtue of having been in contact with a heated thing for longer. At delta 1, what used to be the tip at delta 0 is now the tail. That's one time unit of heating more than the virgin air at the front.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.54817
>>54816
>a heated thing
What thing?
>At delta 1, what used to be the tip at delta 0 is now the tail. Th
Ah, I see you came from the MGS3 school of ballistics. End your life.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.54818
>>54817
>What thing?
Dude, we are fucking talking about bullets. What else could be heated? Your mom's cunt?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.54820
>>54788
You're missing the point
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.54892
>>54813
>likely be thinner than most bullets.
>Having them tumbling through the air would mean they cause more damage to people and make them less likely to penetrate through a wall and hit someone behind.
Nah. The projectile from a rail pistol carry less kinetic energy than a bullet, and be way less lethal. Having a sharp projectile means its areodynamic, and retains its momemntum (and KE) as it experiences drag, but also makes it more likely to peirce clean through a person - which is the opposite of what you want. You want bullets that bounce around and spread inside people cutting them up. Having them tumbling through the air may cause the dart to simply bounce off a person if its not moving fast enough.
Even a CO2, or rubber based mechanism is probably better than rail gun. If rail were a current viable (with small high capacity batteries available), rail might be a preferred technology, having no moving parts would make an incredibly reliable weapon. But the battery limitations make rail vastly inferior for something like a pistol.
I would take an cross bow any day over a rail pistol (except at point blank range, were fast draw matters, and only one shot will be fired).
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.55598
>>54808
>It could be boiling the water as it passes
Assuming there's even enough humidity in the air, what you get is a retro steam rocket. That would slow the bullet and destabilize it. Sounds silly.
Even underwater, it seems odd that there's be enough time, pressure and heat applied to the tip of the projectile without any counter effect on its own velocity. The projectile would be moving so fast that you'd be flash-boiling water ahead of it.
>>54816
So the bullet needs to carry its own heater. :p
Or come out from a railgun so it's super hot.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.55609
>>54892
>Nah. The projectile from a rail pistol carry less kinetic energy than a bullet, and be way less lethal.
stopped reading there. i dont even think railguns are viable in any way, ever. but why are you making this statement as if it's absolute categorical fact that a railgun will ALWAYS be less powerful than a conventional powder gun? not even comparing ones of similar size; you straight up have said here that ALL em weapons will ALWAYS be weaker than conventional ones ALL THE TIME, REGARDLESS OF ALL OTHER FACTORS.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.57258
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.