 Ammunition..., ...Center Core Capacitor |
  |
 Oct 27 2006, 10:23 AM
Post
#1
|
|
|
Moving Target  Group: Members Posts: 281 Joined: 9-September 06 Member No.: 9,346  |
Anyone got any links regarding ammunition rounds that use a capacitor as a portion of the center core, designed to penetrate armor, then discharge lethal electricity to the recipient?
My background with electronics tells me that the lethal electro-shock part wouldn't be difficult to accomplish. My lack of a background with munition creation/composure fails to tell me if it's possible to incorporate that into a round. Large bore rifle, firing rounds that use brass penetrators, and super-conductive contact points sound plausible? |
 |
 
|
|
Oct 27 2006, 10:26 AM
Post
#2
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 171 Joined: 5-February 05 Member No.: 7,053 |
Stick 'n' Shock, meet Steak 'n' Spirits.
It's not just possible, it's ridiculously possible. In my games the Capacitant Munitions Project was abandoned after the initial tests showed that the power requirements were too great. [Edit: Or were you talking about a RL equivalent? Oh, in that case, I've no idea, but I'm still sticking to the far-from shocking "can't get the power source into something that's subjected to so much stress" line.] |
|
|
|
|
Oct 27 2006, 10:34 AM
Post
#3
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 281 Joined: 9-September 06 Member No.: 9,346 |
Heh. 8) Well, yes, I was talking about Real Life development. However, it was going to be evaluated as possible to incorporate into Shadowrun.
Stick-N-Shock unfortunately falls short of the above description, as SNS 'sticks' to the target, then discharges multiple charges into the target, from the exterior, causing stun damage. This ammunition is a single loaded capacitor that discharges itself while it's in the process of producing a sucking-chest wound. I imagine to make it practical, the round would need to be 'charged' by an electromagnetic field that induces capacitance into the round as it rifles through the barrel.
I doubt it'd even begin to compare in power requirements to the amount of power it takes to power one of those fancy laser weapons from CC. Edit: To address multiple points. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Oct 27 2006, 01:05 PM
Post
#4
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 29 Joined: 18-September 06 Member No.: 9,415 |
If you are talking RL Why bother, if you are shot by a gun able to fire a round big enough to hold a capacitor then its "GAME OVER". In real life, unlike the game world you don't stand up after be shot in the chest, legs, back, lower abs., head, and in some cases yes even the arms, not without medical help that is. Putting an electrical charge on top of that would just be adding insult to injury. Also the amount of power needed to make the round AP would destroy the leads on the capacitor and most likely crack the capacitor itself making it useless. As for the game would I would not allow it in my world, to unbalancing.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 27 2006, 01:54 PM
Post
#5
|
|||
|
Freelance Elf Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 7,324 Joined: 30-September 04 From: Texas Member No.: 6,714 |
You should put "sometimes" and "maybe" in a few key places in that sentence. One-shot stops are the exception in modern combat, not the norm. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 27 2006, 03:28 PM
Post
#6
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,537 Joined: 27-August 06 From: Albuquerque NM Member No.: 9,234 |
People who get hit with "Large bore rifle" rounds are the exception. .375 H& H Magnum Barnes X-bullets, for example, are typically pretty darn effective on large angry bears. I'd suspect they would do a number on most people. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 27 2006, 03:30 PM
Post
#7
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 281 Joined: 9-September 06 Member No.: 9,346 |
I don't necessarily agree with that point. None the less, you use the word 'Most Likely' which is a far cry from 'definitely'. Therefore, you concede that it is a possibility. Moving on: A highly penetrative round would not need to inflict damage by the diameter of the wound inflicted. Instead, it would be a matter of simply penetrating the tissue of the target, and discharging lethal voltage throughout his/her interior organs (Re: Heart). Infact, it almost sounds humane: No longer do battle-field soldiers die long, lingering deaths - It's a pinch, a deadly discharge, and a few moments of twitching on the ground. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 27 2006, 04:59 PM
Post
#8
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 834 Joined: 30-June 03 Member No.: 4,832 |
If you want to make a new ammo for SR4 that does what you're describing. Take SnS ammo, and change the Stun to Physical, then increase the price 10x. Or let it do both stun and physical..
There doesn't have to be a RL capability for this to exist in SR. |
|
|
|
|
Oct 27 2006, 05:06 PM
Post
#9
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 475 Joined: 13-March 06 From: dusty Mexican borderlands Member No.: 8,372 |
Where's Raygun when you need 'im?
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 27 2006, 05:12 PM
Post
#10
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 351 Joined: 17-February 06 From: San Francisco Member No.: 8,275 |
I loves me some theoretical munitions. Been excited about ram accelerators/ scram cannons recently. So this theoretical capacitance bullet- I imagine it would have to be charged prior to firing, then release that charge on impact. The plates would be separated, likely by a solid non conductive material, then joined as a circuit by body tissue after impact- creating some lovely resistance in vital organs. So the inside of your barrel would be made of or coated with some relatively non-conducting material. Cool. You'd have to pull a sixth-world dielectric out of your ass that could hold a field density enough to do any damage, though. I'd bet the majority of dielectric materials in use now can't hold enough charge in something the size of a bullet or shell to do any more damage than the kinetic energy from the impact. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 27 2006, 05:20 PM
Post
#11
|
|||
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
doing the smart thing and staying far far away... |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 27 2006, 05:56 PM
Post
#12
|
|||||||
|
Freelance Elf Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 7,324 Joined: 30-September 04 From: Texas Member No.: 6,714 |
Right. I'd suspect they would for most people, too. Were I to write a sentence about their effectiveness in combat, then, I'd use words like "sometimes" and "maybe," in fact. But short of a cruise missile or similar, I'm certainly never going to say "will" when it comes to a bad guy falling down after being shot. Ask a combat vet about it some time. Or, heck, just read the right sort of book (Korea, in particular, springs to mind for lots of examples). I'm not going to ever assume the other guy's gonna fall down right away, no matter what I'm shooting, if (knock on wood that it never happens) I ever end up having to use a firearm to defend myself. To me, as such, a statement like...
... is misinforming, and almost dangerous.
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Oct 27 2006, 05:59 PM
Post
#13
|
|
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
hell, i would not make a 100% statement about cruise missiles either...
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 27 2006, 06:09 PM
Post
#14
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,579 Joined: 30-May 06 From: SoCal Member No.: 8,626 |
Nothing in life is ever guaranteed.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 27 2006, 06:12 PM
Post
#15
|
|
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
death is, just not how your going to die...
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 27 2006, 06:24 PM
Post
#16
|
|||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,579 Joined: 30-May 06 From: SoCal Member No.: 8,626 |
Still an assumption. Maybe you're the Highlander. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 27 2006, 06:52 PM
Post
#17
|
|||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 7,089 Joined: 4-October 05 Member No.: 7,813 |
he died. he just didn't *stay* dead. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Oct 27 2006, 09:23 PM
Post
#18
|
|
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
Main problem here is one of timing. Exactly how are we going to get this bullet to discharge in the body and not somewhere else? While there are exotic reounds that do boast the ability to pierce armor but lodge in flesh the vast majority of bullets capable of such penetrating armor will usually pass through a human torso.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 28 2006, 07:59 AM
Post
#19
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
this strikes me as a bad idea. i mean, let's look at the utility. yes, with a bullet like this, you could--assuming it worked reliably in the fashion it's designed to work--get much higher assurance of putting your target down with a single shot. you could achieve even higher assurance by shooting your target several times with bigger rounds.
plus, these bullets are going to be pretty expensive--not just in terms of production, but storage, transportation, etcetera. if one of these things is made wrong, it could gangfire every other round in the crate. of course, you could use expensive packing materials and procedures to keep each round seperate from its fellows... up until you load them into your clip, at which point your defective round's going to become suddenly and violently apparent. which brings us to reliability. assuming you figure out a way to keep these bullets from setting each other off and/or shocking the hell out of the guys who want to fire them, how do you make sure they deliver their expensive payload? we'll assume the capacitor is set to activate when the bullet deforms, rather than on the shock of impact (since otherwise, it'd go off when you fired the bullet, or even when you dropped your gun). but bullets deform differently, depending on whether they go straight into flesh or have to punch through armor or carome off a wall or smack into a bone under a thin layer of skin. so a lot of your bullets aren't going to deliver their electrical payload anyway, effectively driving up the cost even more (since you've wasted them). and the return for all this expense and trouble can be achieved by simply squeezing the trigger the few more times, and maybe upgrading to a larger caliber weapon--maybe even just a variation of your current caliber, like a hollowpoint or a hot load or whatever floats your boat. basically, the purpose of a bullet is to kill something by putting a hole in it. increasing the lethality of a round should focus on increasing the size of the hole the round makes, because putting bigger holes in targets is a very reliable way to do what bullets are designed to do. other stuff, like poison/shock/whatever? not reliable, therefore not really worth the added expense. |
|
|
|
|
Oct 28 2006, 12:42 PM
Post
#20
|
|||||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 281 Joined: 9-September 06 Member No.: 9,346 |
Certainly shooting your target with several rounds always increases the probability that the threat your target presents will be negated. By that logic: 1) Hitting the Target = Chance of eliminating Target 2) Hitting the Target Multiple Times = Increased Chance of eliminating Target While you've isolated that multiple instances of being shot increases the probability that the target is eliminated, you have not proven that large bore rounds are more effective at eliminating an opponent than rounds that discharge lethal current into the target.
In terms of production, these rounds would probably be more expensive than standard rounds. If the rounds were inert until fired, however, storage and transportation would be negligible.
I've been taught that the purpose of a bullet on a battlefield is to eliminate the threat of the enemy. In an ideal situation, this is done in three ways. First, the combatant that is on the receiving end of a bullet wound is incapacitated. Second, the combatant that is assigned to attending to the target is taken away from engaging their enemies. Third, another combatant must now split their attention to the fronts that the other two combatants previously attended to. In regards to this, putting big holes in targets is definitely a reliable, and historically effective means of accomplishing these three afforementioned goals. However, that does not mean that this is the only way of accomplishing this, or that larger wounds always equates a more effective round. For instance: Large wounds do not always equal an incapacitated target. A wounded target is not always attended to by other combatants. And the front of engaged combatants may at times be narrow enough in scope that the loss of manpower does not ensure a loss in significant effectiveness. All of that aside however. The concept behind this round would be that as it is fired, it is charged. After it penetrates flesh, it releases deadly current into the target. The goals would be as follows: 1) Negates the effectiveness of Body Armor, as the damage to a target is delivered by a means other than the size of wound cavity. 2) The liklihood of a combatant returning to contribute to a firefight is significantly reduced. 3) Because the round is designed to be fired -through- targets, rather than -into- targets, the chances of collateral damage to additional combatants is increased. Now as was mentioned previously, an uber 6th world dielectric would be required to store the charge. If the rifle barrel were able to induce voltage into the round, as it was spinning through, I assume the round would also require a small inductor. This would probably require the sort of battery pack that's included with SR Laser Weapons, though it's likely that said pack would effectively charge a significantly higher degree of rounds than a traditional energy-based weapon would. Anyone have any suggested stats for a weapon that would fire these sort of rounds? I was thinking something along the lines of:
|
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Oct 28 2006, 12:52 PM
Post
#21
|
|
|
Freelance Elf Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 7,324 Joined: 30-September 04 From: Texas Member No.: 6,714 |
It still strikes me as a silly, needless, concept, that would cost a metric fuckton to implement and not really accomplish anything that can't be accomplished in other (both RL and canon in-game) means for a fraction of the cost.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 28 2006, 12:56 PM
Post
#22
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 281 Joined: 9-September 06 Member No.: 9,346 |
I dunno. Electrocuting someone from 2 klicks out strikes me as pretty sweet, to be honest. 8)
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 28 2006, 12:58 PM
Post
#23
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 171 Joined: 5-February 05 Member No.: 7,053 |
What is it with the Internet and people getting really daft ideas about the burden of proof? It's your wacky idea, Steak. You're the one who has to show *us* that it might possibly work, it's not our job to show you that it *can't* possibly work. We just have to show that it's overwhelmingly unlikely, which has been done, so the ball's in your court. Shock us. My two cents? A bullet... That give people heart attacks. That's absurd. You're going through all that trouble to put a big bit of metal in someone, and the idea is to put a battery in it? If we assume the existence of an insane electrically discharging bullet, why not just assume the existence of a bullet capable of exploding with a half-meter blast radius? It's a confirmed incap if you hit them anywhere, and it's much easier to stomach the idea* that a mini-grenade launcher could be shrunk down to rifle size (and increased in muzzle velocity, penetrating power, round stability, etc, etc) than that rifle round could have a defibrillator in it. * Disclaimer: For laymen, at least. I'm sure that explosives scientists would choke on the idea, but we're not even listening to the sensibility of novices in this discussion, there's no need to get experts involved. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 28 2006, 01:01 PM
Post
#24
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 281 Joined: 9-September 06 Member No.: 9,346 |
Nah. A Capacitor stores the charge, which is charged as the round is fired, then completely discharges after entering the target. I don't think a battery would work nearly as effectively. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 28 2006, 01:35 PM
Post
#25
|
|
|
Chicago Survivor Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 5,079 Joined: 28-January 04 From: Canton, GA Member No.: 6,033 |
Well, it take approximately 6 milliamps across the heart to kill with electricity. Anything more is just cooking meat. A dart gun that fire some sort of twinned round connected by a thin wire could conceivably hit to either side of the heart and deliver a DC current strong enough to cause arrythmia. This would likely kill the target, so would putting a round of any size in roughly the same area.
The problem with the concept is that the marksman would have to be so insanely good with a rifle that they could place 2 rounds, fired simultaneously and slightly non-aerodynamic as to hit to either side of a target that is slightly smaller than a cantaloup from a good distance. Far simpler to just aim in the middle, slightly to the left of center. The one benefit of such a weapon is that it would make any hope for first aid nigh impossible unless they had a defibrillator handy as it could correct the disrupted nerve impulses. Wired tasers have been known to do this accidentally, when the center of mass is your ideal target sometimes darts land with the heart in-between. Stick and shock are less likely to do this because they are delivering a static charge that travels from point of impact to the nearest grounding point, likely the floor. Most of the charge is likely dispersed along your skin and clothing, thus minimizing the possibility of disrupting the heart. Tasers have a DC current flowing from one dart to the next, concentrating their neurological disruption and keeping it within the body. Could such a weapon be designed? yes. Will it be practical? No Is it likely to ever exist given the cost/benefit analysis? not on your gun loving life. |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 1st May 2024 - 03:14 AM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.