Toy rocket inspires variable-speed bullets

[beevul]

Toy rocket inspires variable-speed bullets

16:43 21 July 2008
NewScientist.com news service
David Hambling

A gun that fires variable speed bullets and which can be set to kill, wound or just inflict a bruise is being built by a US toy manufacturer. The weapon is based on technology used to propel toy rockets.

Lund and Company Invention, a toy design studio based near Chicago, makes toy rockets that are powered by burning hydrogen obtained by electrolysing water. Now the company is being funded by the US army to adapt the technology to fire bullets instead.

The US Army are interested in arming soldiers with weapons that can be switched between lethal and non-lethal modes. They asked Company Invention to make a rifle that can fire bullets at various speeds.

Sniper version

The new weapon, called the Variable Velocity Weapon System or VWS, lets the soldier to use the same rifle for crowd control and combat, by altering the muzzle velocity. It could be loaded with "rubber bullets" designed only to deliver blunt impacts on a person, full-speed lethal rounds or projectiles somewhere between the two.

http://technology.newscientist.com/article/dn14372-toy-rocket-inspires-variablespeed-bullets.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news5_head_dn14372

The advantages of the type of propulsion used in such a weapon (if I understand the implementation correctly) versus traditional primer/powder systems would be huge providing such a system were reliable and consistent. No more brass to gather up and reload. No more reloading. No more powder or primers to purchase. Simple bullet casting, or perhaps pre-made jacketed bullets. The weight of a full load of ammunition in a firearm with such a system would be reduced significantly in all firearms of that design, with the significance growing as the caliber of gun was increased - especially where conventional long case length calibers are involved. How much weight such a propulsion/ignition system would add to a firearm is something I'd be interested in knowing though. I would assume, such a weapon would have a smooth fluid trigger pull as well, since (I would think) it would have some sort of electronic ignition. And the combustion would be more friendly to the environment than burning gun powder is.

Of course, I don't think the anti contingent will like this much at all since it makes less flash than a conventional firearm when fired, and assuming that they would be made without a plated bore in the barrel, a person could hypothetically make their own ammunition for one indefinitely from wheel weights - which would make the operational costs of the firearm in question far lower that any standard firearm, assuming there is no reageant other than water for the electrolysis. Alhough, they do produce less heat than a standard firearm, which might remove the need for one of those "shoulder things that go up" around the barrel, and I suppose that would make them a little happy.

An interesting technology. Opinions on whether it could be made "civilian viable"? Opinions on whether an effort would be made to keep such a firearm out of civilian hands? Could such a system produce a decent functioning semi-automatic rifle? How would such a frearm have to be made, so that it was not readily restorable or convertable" to fire automatically (assuming automatic fire is possible with such a thing)? I can envision the possibility of "mod chips" for such a rifle, if it were electronically regulated internally, similar in concept to the "mod chips" that are sold for the playstation and other gaming consoles.

[Lasher]

1. Set phasers to stun!

[MicaelS]

2. I can see plenty of problems...

(1) What is your fuel source? Is it based on the electrolysis of water? Then that water has to undergo electrolysis to generate hydrogen. How long does that take? Where is the hydrogen stored before use? Note that Estes does NOT use pure water, they use “a liquid solution composed of tap water and citric acid crystals.” http://www.estesrockets.com/rockets.php?pid=001876 So that adds ANOTHER component that has to be carried.

(2)What are the size, weight and shape of power source(s) used to crack the water?

(3) If it’s NOT water, then is it straight hydrogen? Hydrogen carried how? Stored how? How much bulk and weight?

(4) The weight reduction in removal of fixed cartridge case is more than offset by the weight AND bulk of your fuel source, storage, power source, etc.

Many of your questions in your first paragraph were answered / implemented in the ill-fated H&K G11 caseless assault rifle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_&_Koch_G11 If ANY new weapons systems should have been implemented by the US Army, then it should have been the G11. But the extremely conservative nature of those in power in the Army bureaucracy prevented that. It’s the NIH (not invented here) syndrome.

They even removed a weapons system superior to the M16 / M4, the HK416 from operators.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/02/atCarbine070219/

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/03/Army_no416s_031008w/

“To Col. Robert Radcliffe, the man responsible for overseeing the Army’s needs for small arms, the M16 family is “pretty damn good.” It’s simply too expensive, he said, to replace it with anything less than a “significant leap in technology.”

Well they had one in the G11, but threw it away.

I really don’t see this technology ever being implemented by the Army. This is just the latest half-assed piece of technology someone has managed to glom onto in the military bureaucracy.

So to answer your question, I don’t see this EVER making it to the civilian market, because the military won’t develop it, and they have tons more money to do testing than the civilian market.

[benEzra]

3. I don't see the G11 as being an advance over current systems.

The approach it took made it very bulky, with awful ergonomics, and it would be difficult to scale up to a more effective caliber. 5.56x45mm is already considered somewhat underpowered for most military purposes, but it is considered "good enough," if just barely. The G11's ammunition would have been even less effective than 5.56x45mm M855; smaller caliber and no tumbling. And I doubt a system like that would be very sand tolerant. I notice that the Russians developed the AN-94 to replicate the G11's multi-shot-before-recoil capability, and then decided that the system was too delicate, with no real advantage over the existing AK-74.

As far as the HK416, any gas piston upper on a standard M16/M4/AR-15 receiver would give the same advantages. But they're right, the 416 was slightly better in dust tests, but not hugely better (and nowhere near as reliable as an AK); the magazines are a weak point, and the system still uses tight clearances for accuracy.

On the civilian side of the fence, there is a lot of excitement about the LMT gas-piston upper, and some say it is better than HK's design:

http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=5655

LMT already makes some of the highest regarded civilian AR's, and I suspect that some of these uppers will find their way onto some military weapons as well.

Your criticisms of the hydrogen-powered dial-a-gun are spot-on. Ammunition using conventional propellants is stable for many decades, reliable, very consistent shot-to-shot, and there is very little that can fail. The only possible advantage of the electrolysis system I see are in long-range shooting; I suspect that you could drive a small- or intermediate-caliber rifle round somewhat faster with a hydrogen-based system than with nitrocellulose/nitroglycerin/nitroguanidine based systems, due to the lower molecular weights of the combustion products. You'd have to have pretty good shot-to-shot consistency to take advantage of that, though.

And there are also operational considerations. One of the fundamental rules of gun safety is that you do not even point, never mind discharge, a real firearm at someone unless they are putting you in imminent, unlawful danger of death, serious bodily harm, or a forcible felony, or you are otherwise authorized by law to use deadly force or the threat of deadly force against them (e.g., a LEO attempting to apprehend an armed and dangerous suspect). But the dial-a-gun would require you to SHOOT PEOPLE with a firearm capable of killing them, in situations where killing them is not legally or morally justifiable. What worries me is the type of "mission creep" we've seen with Tasers, in which they have become just another compliance tool (won't sign this ticket? I'll tase you...)

I can see the lawsuits coming when (1) an officer who thought the gun was set on "stun" shoots and kills a protester or noncompliant but nonviolent suspect, or (2) an officer who thought the gun was set on full-power shoots and fails to stop a killer because the officer's gun was accidentally set to "stun" instead.

Now, if they can scale this thing up to 120mm smoothbores, it could have some real advantages for AFV weapons systems, though. And an AFV already has onboard electrical power and the capability to carry plenty of the necessary liquid supplies.

[MicaelS]

4. I'll grant you the ballistics of the G11...

Frankly didn't even think about that. The real problem is as I see it, is that the Army wants a revolutionary (not evolutionary) platform for the operator and will not be satisfied with anything less. I simply do not see one anywhere near, or even on the far horizon that will do everything the Army wants. That aside, the Army is simply not going to change platforms, because too many uniformed bureaucrats jobs depend on the current system. I think small arms development has reached a plateau, and with current technology the only option is to go with a caseless system. That's why I was so disappointed when the G11 was dropped.

What would really blow things wide open (pun intended) would be some sort of extremely high energy electrical storage and delivery system that would allow the fielding of Gauss weapons with terrifically high muzzle velocities. Now THAT could have civilian applications. Long range target shooting, just for one.

If nothing else I'd like to see the Army adopt the FN SCAR-L/H platform.

Good point about the AFV, that is really the place I see any practical use.

Extremely good points about the LEO-based dial-a-gun. I'm really opposed to the system now.

[benEzra]

5. Agree with you on the FN SCAR.

That rifle makes a lot of sense, from both a functional standpoint and a logistics standpoint.

[MicaelS]

8. I cannot for the life of me

Understand why FN has been so slow rolling out these weapons, especially to the civilian market, they could sell a boatload of these things. I haven't seen this much interest in a firearm since the first Glocks. I know for a fact I would buy one of each.

[SteveM]

6. Whatever the merits of this form of technology...

it is worth noting that some rifle-makers (including Jarrett of Jarrett Rifles in South Carolina) say that the firearm of the future will employ non-impact (hammer/pin) ignition and non-metallic cartridges. This seems to suggest that electronic ignition and variable-metered propulsion (a gas?) is feasible enough to cause some gun-makers and munitionists to suggest it is the next big thing.

This from a Field & Stream article which I cannot find on-line using their search engine.

[MicaelS]

7. Really?

Could also mean a caseless / electronic ignition system too. But I would really like to read that article.

[tburnsten]

10. Willing to bet

that he was more talking about a caseless cartridge with some alternate form of ignition, like electronic. Does make sense though, eleminate an entire element of cartridges and we would lighten and possibly simplify the whole system.

[tburnsten]

9. Been there done that

It's called a Gyrojet, and they were a flop.





"And the combustion would be more friendly to the environment than burning gun powder is."

I think that burning gunpowder is an incredibly minor issue.

I don't think the idea will pan out, the fact that it will have to accelerate far faster than an ordinary rocket projectile will probably be its undoing, as will the almost certainly fatter and heavier projectiles needed to fit all that self-contained propulsion in there. Not to mention the liability suits after some dingbat shoots someone, either a fellow soldier or a civilian with a "dude hold my beer" moment when they forgot to switch from real to blunt force projectiles, or when the first group of soldiers dies because some jackoff scared of paperwork forces them to carry nothing but less lethal in a hot area. There are literally hundreds of situations that could be epic failures with this system that would not be with an ordinary weapon system.

And if it needs twenty to thirty yards or more to reach its operating velocity, forget CQB. The Gyrojet projectiles could be stopped at the muzzle with a finger or a piece of cardboard, that is how slow they were moving at the muzzle.