The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old April 5, 1999, 04:07 AM   #1
TABING
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 28, 1999
Location: White Mountains, AZ & Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
Posts: 663
Scientific American Aprill 1999

Weaponry

TAKING BALLISTICS BY STORM

An electronic gun with
no mechanical parts fires a million
rounds per minute


by Dan Drollette in Canberra, Australia

"When you first hear of a gun without any moving mechanical parts, you
tend to laugh. I know I had to withhold my giggles," recalls physicist
Adam Drobot of Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), a
company based in San Diego that evaluates new technologies. "But once
you see the videotape of this test-firing, the giggle factor goes away."

The gun in question is something that even its inventor says comes out of
left field. Termed Metal Storm, the weapon has no hammer, no trigger,
no breechblock and no shell casings to eject. Equally unusual, a single
barrel fires at a rate equivalent to one million rounds per minute. In
comparison, the fastest conventional firearms (Gatling guns) fire only
6,000 rounds per minute.

Metal Storm's origins are unorthodox as well. It was invented by former
grocery wholesaler Mike O'Dwyer, a lone Australian tinkerer with no
formal education in ballistics or engineering. His previous patents are for
devices such as air-cooled sneakers. ("They pump air through as you
jog," he explains.) Yet after 15 years of trial and error in his tropical
Queensland home, O'Dwyer came up with a gun prototype that recently
fired 180 rounds of nine-millimeter bullets in 0.01 second during a
demonstration before military officials in Adelaide. Metal Storm's bullets
leave its barrel so quickly that they are only microseconds apart--when
one bullet is flying through the air, the next is just 10 centimeters (four
inches) behind. For current machine guns, the gap between bullets is 30
meters.

"It could replace our existing technology on the battlefield," says Maj.
David Goyne, a weapons specialist at Australian Defense Headquarters.
The gun is ideal for close-in situations, such as defending ships against
incoming missiles. Goyne comments that it could also eliminate land
mines in open areas such as Kuwait's deserts: a helicopter using the gun
could hover above the sands and clear a minefield by spraying it from a
distance, exploding mines harmlessly.

The gun works through a combination of specially designed bullets and an
electronic firing mechanism, which O'Dwyer describes as "a barrel tube
with an electrical wire attached." Jacketless bullets are lined up inside,
nose to tail, and are separated from one another by a layer of propellant.
When an electric current makes its way down the strip, the bullets are set
off one by one. To stop them from going off simultaneously--a problem
previously encountered when putting many bullets in a single
barrel--O'Dwyer designed the bullets to work together. The high pressure
caused by the firing of the first projectile makes the nose of the next one
in line swell against the walls, temporarily sealing off the rest of the barrel.
(In ballistics terms, the nose of the second bullet effectively acts as a
breechblock to prevent an uncontrolled sympathetic ignition.) After the
first bullet exits, the pressure drops, and the nose of the second one
loosens up, enabling the bullet to be fired. This process continues for each
successive bullet.

Other than the projectiles themselves, there are no moving parts. To get
even more firepower, several loaded barrels can be set up side by side.
Once a barrel is used up, it can be discarded or sent back to the factory
for reloading.

Variations of electrically fired weapons have been tried before. For
instance, Sandia National Laboratories developed an electromagnetic coil
gun designed to hurl 100-kilogram (220-pound) satellites into orbit. But a
number of differences separate the two approaches, observes Vinod Puri,
senior research scientist with the Australian Defense Science and
Technology Organization: "The electromagnetic coil gun demands lots of
energy, achieves high velocities and sends large objects great distances. In
contrast, Metal Storm requires less energy, works at lower velocities, uses
normal gun propellant and sends out more, smaller projectiles per minute
for shorter distances."

O'Dwyer points out another feature of guns like Metal Storm: because
electronics are such an integral part of their makeup, they offer a good
opportunity for built-in electronic safeguards, such as security keypads. If
an unauthorized user tried to bypass the gun's security system by
disabling the electronics, the gun simply couldn't fire. The device has
many nonmilitary uses, too, Drobot notes. A slower version could replace
the nail guns used by carpenters and roofers and may find a use in
riveting and other industrial applications.

Goyne remarks that the technology still needs fine-tuning--it fires
relatively small caliber bullets, for example. But physicists such as Puri
say its basic design is "very solid." The Australian Trade Commission is
promoting the weapon, which has attracted attention in Australia and
Britain.

In the U.S., General Dynamics has tested it, and SAIC has been
contracted to help develop it further. A. Fenner Milton, previously in
charge of weapons acquisition for the U.S. Army and now running the
army's night-vision lab, attended a test-firing of a Metal Storm prototype
in Australia last year. "In my opinion, Metal Storm represents a truly
innovative approach to lethality, that if further developed has great
potential for defensive weapon systems that can take advantage of its
extraordinarily high burst rate of fire," an impressed Milton says.

What seems to surprise most experts about the technology is its source.
"It sometimes takes someone who isn't very conventional to come up
with new ideas," Drobot observes. "My amazement is at the
process--O'Dwyer didn't blow up a barrel or kill himself while making it."


The Author

DAN DROLLETTE described how wallabies could replace the lab rat in
the Octo
TABING is offline  
Old April 5, 1999, 05:36 AM   #2
Hal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Ohio USA
Posts: 8,563
I think I'll wait for the .45 version.

------------------
A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined;
George Washington Jan 8,1790--There can be no doubt about the Second Amendment.

Hal is offline  
Old April 5, 1999, 11:05 AM   #3
4V50 Gary
Staff
 
Join Date: November 2, 1998
Location: Colorado
Posts: 21,824
Is it concealable beneath a sports jacket and can it take a folding stock and bayonet?
4V50 Gary is offline  
Old April 5, 1999, 12:11 PM   #4
Dennis
Staff Emeritus
 
Join Date: November 23, 1998
Location: a small forest in Texas
Posts: 7,079
Nuclear explosions generate such severe levels of EMF (?electromagnetic force?) that (25 years ago) the military said all radio communication and computer operations would be inoperable or even destroyed. I do not know what research has proven since then, but what effect would such EMF have on such weapons as "My next gun"?

Also, I believe I saw on (?the Discovery Channel?) a program called "InSight". LawEnforcement research into this field indicated that LE may be able to disrupt typical electrical usage, in a home (for example), to permanently destroy computers, microwaves, TVs, and even disrupt the use of common light bulbs (or destroy them). This being done with EMF generating devices. I believe they called one an "EMF cannon" or something similar.

Naturally such weapons as high intensity low-cyle sound waves (causing disabling nausea), EMF "devices" and other technically advanced non-lethal law enforcement "aids" would only be used to protect American subjects... er,... citizens in hostage and "stand-off" situations. Such "tools" would never be used against large groups of men, women, elderly, children, and infants or to attack some remote mountain "stronghold".

((Sorry, that may have been a bit "off thread". The connection is "electronics".))

If the barrels must be re-loaded or sent to the factory for re-loading, there would have to be some device to quickly change barrels. I wonder if that device would be called a magazine or a clip.

[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited April 05, 1999).]
Dennis is offline  
Old April 5, 1999, 12:11 PM   #5
Rob Pincus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Hotels
Posts: 3,668
I saw a video of this gun in operation about 2 years ago.. that is when it first hit the mags too. It is an interesting concept, but only really practical for vehicle mounted systems, or point defense.

It would make a great alternative to the Phalanx system currently protecting our ships from incoming missles. Last I head reloading was laborious and time consuming.. the BEST method was completely removing all of the barrels and attaching new ones with rounds already in them.

Their were some concerns about velocity and POI differences, since the first rounds would have significantly less barrel to travel through than the later rounds..

Looked freakin' awesome in the video though!
Rob Pincus is offline  
Old April 5, 1999, 12:36 PM   #6
Brett Bellmore
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 17, 1999
Location: Capac, MI, USA
Posts: 1,927
A bit impractical as a sidearm, I think. I recently read an article on "hollow point BULLETLESS ammo" which was just as neat a concept, but might actually find it's way into your holster; The concept was to use a modified case as a hollow point bullet; Each round firing the previous round's case out the barrel. Hard on reloaders, I suppose, but it seemed to have some potential for machine guns.
Brett Bellmore is offline  
Old April 5, 1999, 12:43 PM   #7
cornered rat
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 30, 1998
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 920
Vulcanic gun of 1840s did just that....didn't work well.
cornered rat is offline  
Old April 5, 1999, 12:46 PM   #8
James K
Member In Memoriam
 
Join Date: March 17, 1999
Posts: 24,383
EMF? HEMP? The bit of electronics involved should be easy to shield. (Reminds me of the Gov't spec writer who wanted to require that a new computer be proof against a nuke detonated directly overhead at an altitude of 100 feet. Someone suggested that he should see first find some very tough operators.) A more serious problem would seem to be that the barrel is the magazine. Too expensive for much range practice, plus being too big for the shoulder holster.
James K is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:23 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.10416 seconds with 7 queries