Will we live to see the advent of handgun-sized railguns?

[MikeGoob]

We saw the rifle version in Eraser. Perhaps funding stopped there and they never bothered to scale it down to handguns. Sad.

 

[simonrichter]

Glad to hear that. I agree that such a step in technology would mean that we, the people, would be left playing with the antiques while the new stuff would be strictly in the hands of military and LE.

 

[hdwhit]

simonrichter wrote:
So my question: Will we live to see railguns rendering the current firemarms technology obsolete?

I think it unlikely.

The problem is powering it. Electrical energy storage technology is not advancing anywhere near as fast as our ability to make devices that consume that energy portable.

At some point there will (hopefully) be a breakthrough in battery/capacitor technology that will increase energy densities enough to make portable energy weapons practical, but for now only people with a crystal ball can hazard a guess as to when that will happen.

 

[hdwhit]

Ray Sendero wrote:
I really don't know the specs for the USN's railgun projects;
I've read speculation that the max range could be up to 400 miles!?
But even if it could achieve 0.5 MOA,
How could it ever hit something at LONG range
even the size of a another ship without a lot of luck?

Build active guidance into the projectile to enable it to make its own mid-course corrections. The technology to do that has existed since the 1960s. The issue with doing it with a rail gun projectile is doing it at the speeds the projectile is traveling.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

In Erase, Ah-nuld also had J frame that he gave to the female he was protecting. I guess that would be the way to go when the rail gun goes off the rails.

 

[RaySendero]

hdwhit wrote:

Build active guidance into the projectile to enable it to make its own mid-course corrections. The technology to do that has existed since the 1960s. The issue with doing it with a rail gun projectile is doing it at the speeds the projectile is traveling.

I've read where the current active guidance technology won't withstand the initial launch forces. So its currently using solid projectiles (e.g. relatively inexpensive).

 

[tipoc]

Many years ago, too many to recall, I read an article in one of the rags about a caseless cartridge that was being prototyped. The propellant held the bullet in place and was essentially the case. The cartridge was discharged electronically. If I recall correctly it was a 223 and was being developed for the military. They were looking at things such as making the cartridges water proof and finding ways to improve accuracy. I think the development rifle was an autloader. The cartridge was very lightweight. It sounded very promising, no brass discharge. I haven't heard much since though seem to recall maybe stumbling over something in production. Should something like that take hold and penetrate the market quickly like striker fired weapons did, and you are young enough, it may be possible.

As I recall the massive expense of making a transition to caseless ammo for an army did it in. It was developed when the threat of an invasion by the USSR was a possibility in military thinking. With the collapse of the USSR, threat gone. That was about the time H&K introduced working prototypes.

The cost of an army converting from one gun to another, hand or long, has delayed more than one transition over the generations, even with conventional weapons.

tipoc

 

[briandg]

One of the problems with caseless ammo is that it has no case to hold the pressure. ever thought about what it takes to hold 60,000 psi?

It requires a heavy brass case head, a tightly held primer, a solid breech block, and any part of a high pressure case that isn't supported by a strong web must be contained within a solid steel chamber to keep the gas from punching right through the brass. That brass case functions as a great big seal, it is compressed against the steel and prevents gas leakage into the breech.

I don't usually put things in the form of questions, but, have you got any suggestions for solidly locking a breech on a weapon meant for tens of thousands of cycles, locking it so solidly and completely that no gas can escape, and make it so flawless that even a wad of sand in the action couldn't disable it?

Im of the belief that we will probably never replace the ammunition that we have. Priming systems may change. There will be lots of changes, what will not change is that we will always use a case that seals the gasses.

 

[briandg]

Btw, keep in mind that our world is swarming with liars, thieves, con artist's...

If a person can come up with a good enough scam, he will get funding, and have a job. Producing results isn't guaranteed.

A few years ago, some con artist started a fund me campaign. He was going to make giant vacuum cleaners and get rid of all of the plastic trash in the oceans.


PEOPLE GAVE HIM MONEY!

Having people experimenting with caseless ammo generally means that they are being paid to try, whether it is the army or Winchester. Mostly, I believe that these people are charlatans. I don't see any way of ever making a device that can meet military standards, including costs.

Is there anyone here that has had a case head separation?

 

[TXAZ]

RaySendaro read wrong when he noted:

I've read where the current active guidance technology won't withstand the initial launch forces. So its currently using solid projectiles (e.g. relatively inexpensive).

I worked for a large defense contractor, where we made electronic (radar) fuses for everything from 30mm cannon shells up to nuclear weapons.

On a later effort outside the employer we figured out how to steer a .50 cal round out of a rifled barrel, not a smooth bore like EXACTO, for a whole lot less.

The technology / skill / techniques to make electronics survive (well over a thousand G's) is not difficult, but does require testing. It isn't rocket science anymore.

 

[DaleA]

Just to bring this up again...

The USS Zumwalt guns were designed to fire a projectile that turned out to cost a bit over $800,000 each.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a23738/uss-zumwalt-ammo-too-expensive/

Of course as someone mentioned when this was originally brought up the $800,000 cost was for FACTORY ammo...if the Navy would reload its own...

 

[44 AMP]

I don't usually put things in the form of questions, but, have you got any suggestions for solidly locking a breech on a weapon meant for tens of thousands of cycles, locking it so solidly and completely that no gas can escape, and make it so flawless that even a wad of sand in the action couldn't disable it?

We've had something that sort of does that for over 100years. However, I don't think it does as well when scaled down to small arms size. Artillery (including naval rifles) using "caseless" ammo (projectile and bagged powder) has been around for quite a while, and absolutely does work.

I don't know about "tens of thousands" of shots, artillery barrels don't last that long, but it is the bore that wears out, not the breech. My point is that the interrupted thread breeches of really big guns hold the pressure just fine, without using a case. If it can be done with the big guns, it could be done with small ones. Figuring out HOW with small ones is "fiddly bits", and is probably cost prohibitive, compared to the cased round systems we already use, but I believe it can be done. The prototype "caseless" guns had to seal the chamber, somehow.

As to "will we live to see railguns (as small arms) in our lifetime? I can't say, but my grandfather lived to see the first heavier than air powered flight, AND to see a man walk on the moon, all in his lifetime!!! (ok the old boy did make it to 96, and got there 13 years AFTER we landed on the moon...)

The thing with rail gun tech is that today, we are looking at biplanes, and wanting an F-22 to buy off the shelf, tomorrow.

That ain't gonna happen, not tomorrow, and not next week.

In the scifi I've read, handgun size "rail guns" are always small bore, 2, or 3mm, one story had a character packing what was the "magnum" version, a 4mm, which was noted for its heavy recoil...

Some fire glass beads (with a tiny metal core for the magnetics to work on)

Mag-Lev can float an entire train, and move it at up to 300mph TODAY.

MRI are special fields, not focused the way the field would be in a weapon.

30+ (maybe 40+ now ) years ago I remember hearing about one "rail gun" test bed was built at some university, fired a pencil sized object. 6' long acceleration path, 24' "deceleration" path. When they fired it, the projectile reached the end of the deceleration path before the image of it at rest faded from the retina's of those watching. (or, so they said, )

Pont is, we can do that now, and we're like the WWI biplane, can do maybe 100mph, all out. 30 years after that, 450-600mph, and 30 years after that, Mach 2 (more? things like that get "classified )

We MIGHT see effective rail guns as small arms by the next century, maybe sooner, if the push is there (right now it isn't) a LOT can happen in 80 years or so...not that I personally expect to see it.

 

[RaySendero]

Yep,
I can see where guidance will be both needed and very expensive.
Even at 60 miles.
Just don't think they are there yet!

Have seen nothing but testing of solid projectiles.
Would expect for the Zumwalt to be effective with a railgun
(i.e.clearing a beach path for U.S. Marines as they advance inland)
The rounds would have to contain explosives.
Yet another technology $$$,$$$ problem with the launch forces.

 

[Mike Irwin]

We already have. Over 100 years ago.

 

[RaySendero]

Just saw a couple of vids on YouTube regarding the USN rail gun projects.

Learned the USS Zumwalt has a 155 gun that is capable of rapid fire shooting guided explosive projectiles.
The latest rail gun under development has just now got the power density to shoot similar diameter projectiles a max range of 110 miles.
This rail gun is not capable of rapid fire as heat from the armature can't be dissipated that fast.
Neither vid when into any details of the projectiles.

 

[tipoc]

Ruger has been pushing it's ARX bullets for awhile now and have partnered with Midway on selling them. It's a very light weight composite bullet, light and fast and frangible when it hits a hard target. Little recoil. Still capable of penetration in 10% ballistic gel. It also looses energy rapidly.

They have an 88 gr. bullet for the 300 BLK that leaves the muzzle at 2550 fps but drops over 550 fps by 100 yards. So it clearly has limited, or specialized use.

http://www.polycaseammo.com/wp-cont...00-AAC-BLK-88-GR-SRR-Spec-Sheet-201704-v3.pdf

It's an effort though.

Cell phones mean we no longer have to lay thousands of miles of copper wire to make a phone call from Cebu City, Phillipines to Salina, Kansas. We can also send a pic of what we're eating for lunch to our "friends". Which by the way is a good way to weed some of them out. If they care what I'm eating for lunch, or express the slightest interest, weed them out.

I have no interest in CCW a $7,000 rail gun even if it has a laser discreetly built in it. I don't want a Tesla, and I don't want a self driving truck.

tipoc

 

[mdemetz]

The new carrier Gerald R. Ford uses electromagnetic catapults.

 

[pat701]

Sure, but first they need to learn how to accurately predict the weather 5 days in advance. first things first.

 

[Mal H]

This subject has run the course and completed it. Now we're seeing superfluous stuff that has no bearing on the original topic.

Closed.