Interesting thought about firearms

[U.S. Patriot]

I'm watching a show on NetGeo about tank technology. Older tanks as we know had smaller bore cannons. So, like modern firearms, they had rifling to stabilize the round. With bigger rounds, like what the Abrams fires (125mm). There is no need for rifling, as it's not as accurate. When a round leaves the barrel of an Abrams tank, it's traveling over 3,000 mph. The rounds stabilize themselves. I know, as we all do, no modern small bore weapon can send a projectile at over 3,000 mph. Imagine though, if there was a way to increase projectile speed, and have no need for rifling. I know that it's way out there. Imagine though, if there where rounds with self containing fins, that would stabilize the round. Like the sabot anti tank round. Imagine a sniper, being able to accurately hit a man center mass at at 2,000-3,000 yards, with a large bore rifle. Who knows where technology will take the next generation of firearms.

 

[451_Detonics]

Depending on the projectial the round is going 5200 to 5700 fps. Considering there are rifles capable of well over 4000 fps I don't think just 1000 fps more velocity will make a major difference. I think the next major change in firearms and the way the projectile will be propelled will be a rail gun. The Navy has tested a rail gun that will launch a 7 pound projectile at over 7800 fps, I would think a 100 gr projectile could be made to move much faster. Of course the projectile would have to be tough enough to survive the velocities.

 

[yotewacker]

I have forgot my math on this subject. But if my memory is correct. Then about 5,200fps is the speed at which gun powder burns, taken into consideration the friction of the barrel. Then the middle 4,000's is the fastest a projectile can be pushed. This is why the Blackbird flew at 3,000 mph. There was no projectile that could catch it.The next step will be electric-magnetic propulsion, which is to propel a metal object with magnetism. Such as with adding electricity to a coil such as a solenoid. This was done a few years ago by NASA. The built a small radio transmitter to shoot into space to track the speed at which it traveled. when shot, it produced such speed, the G-force completly disintigrated the tranmitter. I'm sure the government has perfected this gun now and it's cabable of speeding a bullet at close to the speed of electricity which is
186,000 miles per second.

most tanks have rifling's. They only last to about 125 shots. Then the barrel must be replaced for accuracy. this is why our Abrams tank uses a longer bullet, so it will be more stabilized like a rocket.

 

[thekuhnburger]

Sounds interesting... but is it that big of a deal to rifle a barrel? Plus we would miss out on all of the kabooms!

 

[tom1025]

I'm watching a show on NetGeo about tank technology. Older tanks as we know had smaller bore cannons. So, like modern firearms, they had rifling to stabilize the round. With bigger rounds, like what the Abrams fires (125mm). There is no need for rifling, as it's not as accurate. When a round leaves the barrel of an Abrams tank, it's traveling over 3,000 mph. The rounds stabilize themselves. I know, as we all do, no modern small bore weapon can send a projectile at over 3,000 mph. Imagine though, if there was a way to increase projectile speed, and have no need for rifling. I know that it's way out there. Imagine though, if there where rounds with self containing fins, that would stabilize the round. Like the sabot anti tank round. Imagine a sniper, being able to accurately hit a man center mass at at 2,000-3,000 yards, with a large bore rifle. Who knows where technology will take the next generation of firearms.

In the next generation everyone will have laser guns. Kinda like startrac had nextals and bluetooths 30 years before it was available to the public.

 

[squirrelhntr]

interesting topic for anyone who enjoys shooting sports. the history of the firearm going back is almost as interesting as going forward. i also believe the next tech will be lazer projectiles, or some kind of heat.

 

[eldirector]

The US military already has rail guns and lasers. The future is now!

Rail Gun:
US Navy Producing Scaled-Down Rail Gun Naval Weapon

Laser:
U.S. Navy Laser Weapon Shoots Down Drones in Test [Video]: Scientific American
Boeing YAL-1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The limiting factor for handheld versions of either is simply energy storage. Both take an incredible amount of electrical energy that must be released in a very short amount of time. That, and you might want more than one shot. Once battery/capacitor technology catches up, it should be pretty easy to package something in a rifle-type form factor.

Wasn't there a post on here a while back of a kid building a Gauss Gun at home?

 

[OneBadV8]

You should google "Metal Storm"

Check youTube also

 

[neraph]

There are already several cartridges that have exceeded 3000mph.
For reference: 3000 mph = 4400 fps

.223 WSSM can supposedly get there with the 36 grain bullets (according to hodgdon's data)
.17 Remington can achieve the same velocities

As for large bores, State Arms made a 375-50bmg (called the "Mach V" by it's maker) that supposedly could exceed 3000mph, but they didn't sell very well (predictably).

 

[squirrelhntr]

I bet the battery or solar power tech will be helped along because of the fossil fuel situation also.

 

[CountryBoy19]

Depending on the projectial the round is going 5200 to 5700 fps. Considering there are rifles capable of well over 4000 fps I don't think just 1000 fps more velocity will make a major difference. I think the next major change in firearms and the way the projectile will be propelled will be a rail gun. The Navy has tested a rail gun that will launch a 7 pound projectile at over 7800 fps, I would think a 100 gr projectile could be made to move much faster. Of course the projectile would have to be tough enough to survive the velocities.

This ^^^

1 mph = 1.46667 fps

So 3000 mph = 4400 fps

There are center-fire rifles capable of those velocities today and they still require rifling for stabilization so something else must be going on with the tanks.

 

[singlestacksig]

speed has nothing to do with stabilization of the round..
the Abrams fires a fin stabilized round..
similar rounds are fired from rifled guns but use spinner bearings so the sabot does not spin..

the lack of rifling allows a slightly greater muzzle speed and cheaper ammo..

 

[CountryBoy19]

the lack of rifling allows a slightly greater muzzle speed and cheaper ammo..

True, but a fin-stabilized round would have a lower ballistic coefficient and lose velocity much faster.

 

[singlestacksig]

we switched to the fin stabilized rounds because they allow better range & punch..
the APFSDS round is one nasty tank killer.
the Brits still use a rifled gun so they can fire spin stabilized Squash HE rounds.. for use against buildings..

 

[CandRFan]

we switched to the fin stabilized rounds because they allow better range & punch..
the APFSDS round is one nasty tank killer.
the Brits still use a rifled gun so they can fire spin stabilized Squash HE rounds.. for use against buildings..

You know, I don't recall ever reading about a HE round being something that the M1 carried, though I'm sure there would have to be one?

A round that would be real nasty would be the cannister round developed after Gulf War II!

 

[jlin]

The US military already has rail guns and lasers. The future is now!

Rail Gun:
US Navy Producing Scaled-Down Rail Gun Naval Weapon

Video of Navy tests using a railgun to launch aircraft. The action starts 1:48 into the video.
AvWeb

 

[Astrocreep]

FRAG-12 fin stabilized 12ga grenade round:
http://www.defensereview.com/1_31_2004/FRAG%2012.pdf

They don't go very fast but it goes along with the OP's idea about fin stabilized ammo... totally possible.

What I would give to get ahold of a case of those babies...

 

[singlestacksig]

You know, I don't recall ever reading about a HE round being something that the M1 carried, though I'm sure there would have to be one?

A round that would be real nasty would be the cannister round developed after Gulf War II!

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/m908.htm

 

[Mr.Lubie]

FRAG-12 fin stabilized 12ga grenade round:
http://www.defensereview.com/1_31_2004/FRAG 12.pdf

They don't go very fast but it goes along with the OP's idea about fin stabilized ammo... totally possible.

What I would give to get ahold of a case of those babies...

"The most rigorous testing will be in the area of handling,
storing, shipping, and firing safety to provide the combatant commanders
the data needed to determine if a safety waiver for use in combat is
warranted."

Combat safe?Who would have thunk it

 

[Cru]

It will be a more elegant time...

no clumsy blasters.