Hello,
First post.
I was reading this thread on the Sakura Fubuki and did a little research on the Metal Storm Technology. (Original post: http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=11892)
Does anyone think that corps will be using this type of tech for arcology / office defense? What about drones? Could a SR get his hands on a drone linke this? (These are both Flash files for ease of viewing.)
Stationary Area Denial:
http://www.metalstorm.com/clientuploads/di...Trials_2005.swf
Woundn't this be a nice little drone?:
http://www.metalstorm.com/clientuploads/di...40mm-UGV-01.swf
Full Version: Metal Storm Technology
Seeing as how the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory has got some M134s, I don't think certain MetalStorm applications, like close air defense systems, would be out of the question. However, grenade launchers like those you linked would be out of the question except when the area being defended is more than a few miles in every direction. Using a system like the ADWS to protect a corp office would be about as silly as setting up some Claymores to protect a kiosk.
Silly? But what if it is a very valuable kiosk and you make sure to pay careful attention to little details like FRONT TOWARD ENEMY? 
I did some extensive reading on metal storm a few months back, when i run across the Sakura Fubuki.
Corporations would use metalstorm weapons, cops would, soldiers would, runners would...
Perhaps not as an area denial weapons platform
.
I would not use metal storm in my shadowrun, since it's not incorporated in the background and would yield strange results with current rules
.
Corporations would use metalstorm weapons, cops would, soldiers would, runners would...
Perhaps not as an area denial weapons platform
. I would not use metal storm in my shadowrun, since it's not incorporated in the background and would yield strange results with current rules
.
Metal Storm's best applications are missile defense and air denial. It is overkill for ground denial and useless for infantry.
Consider the problems inherent to the system.
1) Ammo capacity is limited by barrel length, making it fairly useless for pistols and rifles. The Fubuki gets around this by using multiple barrels but that means greater weight.
2)Because ammo is limited by barrel length clips and magazines are not interchangable between weapons. A box magazine that is issued for a M16 can be used in M4s, AR15s and every other variant of the rifle. A metal storm clip will be limited to weapons with exactly the same barrel length.
3)The first bullets in the barrel will have drasticly lower muzzle velocity than later bullets. this will slaughter accuracy. The only way to remedy this is to put a mor epowerful propellent in earlier bullets. This wil make it impossible to break up clips and reload one at a time.
4) Electricaly primed propellent can present its own problems, specificly with tazers and lightning-slinging magicians. The latter isn't much of a problem today but it would be bad to have all your bullets to go off due to electrocution.
5) It shoots too fast, seriously. With less ammo (5 shots in a rifle, maybe) a ROF of thousands of rounds a second will leave infantrymen reloading every .02 seconds.
6) Without its absurd rate of fire it offers no advantage in smaller calibers and carries far too many disadvantages to be taken seriously. For infantry, it is useless in anything smaller than a grenade launcher.
An over or under barrel grenade launcher is the most realistic infantry use of Metalstorm. A law enforcement agency may be able to load such a launcher with less lethal ordinance such as giant nets. It will never replace the basic sidearm.
Consider the problems inherent to the system.
1) Ammo capacity is limited by barrel length, making it fairly useless for pistols and rifles. The Fubuki gets around this by using multiple barrels but that means greater weight.
2)Because ammo is limited by barrel length clips and magazines are not interchangable between weapons. A box magazine that is issued for a M16 can be used in M4s, AR15s and every other variant of the rifle. A metal storm clip will be limited to weapons with exactly the same barrel length.
3)The first bullets in the barrel will have drasticly lower muzzle velocity than later bullets. this will slaughter accuracy. The only way to remedy this is to put a mor epowerful propellent in earlier bullets. This wil make it impossible to break up clips and reload one at a time.
4) Electricaly primed propellent can present its own problems, specificly with tazers and lightning-slinging magicians. The latter isn't much of a problem today but it would be bad to have all your bullets to go off due to electrocution.
5) It shoots too fast, seriously. With less ammo (5 shots in a rifle, maybe) a ROF of thousands of rounds a second will leave infantrymen reloading every .02 seconds.
6) Without its absurd rate of fire it offers no advantage in smaller calibers and carries far too many disadvantages to be taken seriously. For infantry, it is useless in anything smaller than a grenade launcher.
An over or under barrel grenade launcher is the most realistic infantry use of Metalstorm. A law enforcement agency may be able to load such a launcher with less lethal ordinance such as giant nets. It will never replace the basic sidearm.
| QUOTE (hyzmarca) |
| 3)The first bullets in the barrel will have drasticly lower muzzle velocity than later bullets. this will slaughter accuracy. The only way to remedy this is to put a mor epowerful propellent in earlier bullets. This wil make it impossible to break up clips and reload one at a time. |
The current Metal Storm weapons all have varying amounts of propellant between the projectiles to maintain similar muzzle velocity, though reloading barrels one round at a time would be just about impossible in field conditions anyway. Since carrying extra ammunition would mean carrying extra barrels, the weight of ammunition goes way up. This is one additional reason why Metal Storm technology will never replace conventional small arms.
Accuracy will be slaughtered anyway by the deformed projectiles. Incidentally, no Metal Storm rifle platform has ever gotten as far as the prototype stage.
| QUOTE (hyzmarca) |
| 5) It shoots too fast, seriously. With less ammo (5 shots in a rifle, maybe) a ROF of thousands of rounds a second will leave infantrymen reloading every .02 seconds. |
This is not an issue, since Metal Storm weapons can be programmed to fire at just about any rate of fire.
| QUOTE (hyzmarca) |
| An over or under barrel grenade launcher is the most realistic infantry use of Metalstorm. |
It is also the only type of hand-held Metal Storm weapon that's ever been seriously considered for use by any armed force, as part of the Australian AICW VX3.
Metal storm grenade launchers have also been considered for fire fighting and non lethal munitions - such would be of great use to every megacorp. Of course, a Metal Storm gun has to be computer controlled so hackers will have a field day
A proposed handgun from the company offered the possibility of firing a second shot while the first bullet was still in the barrel - increasing the velocity and penetration of the first shot. That would be a useful feature as well.
A proposed handgun from the company offered the possibility of firing a second shot while the first bullet was still in the barrel - increasing the velocity and penetration of the first shot. That would be a useful feature as well.
| QUOTE |
| 1) Ammo capacity is limited by barrel length, making it fairly useless for pistols and rifles. The Fubuki gets around this by using multiple barrels but that means greater weight. |
No more useless than, say, a break-action shotgun or a revolver. Lets say you can only fit four bullets in a pistol barrel while still having enough of a muzzle velocity on the first to be effective. Well, so? Give it two barrels, and you have a gun about the same size as a revolver, but far more flexible. More ammo; can fire one, some, or all of its ammo in a single shot; about the same weight as the revolver; similar performance profile; and just as easy to re-load.
Same weight as the revolver, I say? Close, yes. Say it's a 6-shot revolver; this has two more bullets and an extra barrel, but no action of any kind. It might be slightly heavier, but not much. Sure, the barrels a significant weight... But the barrel on a metal storm can be much lighter than the barrel on a quality pistol. MS barrels are disposable; they have to survive... Well, in this case, 4 shots. If it fails, you replace it instead of re-loading it later; re-loading is a hassle anyway. On the other hand, the barrel on a regular pistol has to survive hundreds if not thousands of shots, and resist warping in heavy (say, 100 shots per hour) usage. Hell, it could even just be a tough plastic; if it melts after the fourth shot... Well, it's empty anyway.
One other interesting thought; ammo types. Lets say your Metal Storm Pistol has two barrels; there's nothing stopping you from having one regular, and one gel; or one explosive, and one APDS; or whatever mix you want. And, unlike most guns, you can easily select which to fire at any time... Or just fire both. Though I shudder slightly at the rules for mixed-ammo bursts.
Also, even with speed-loaders, loading a revolver is - at best - fidgety. A speed-loader has to be designed to break away quickly, which means it's inconveniently shaped/sized, leaves the bullets exposed, and prone to having bullets fall out of it. A metal storm barrel, on the other hand, is a self-contained and far more robust method of loading, and less awkwardly shaped/easier to store/carry.
| QUOTE |
| 2)Because ammo is limited by barrel length clips and magazines are not interchangable between weapons. A box magazine that is issued for a M16 can be used in M4s, AR15s and every other variant of the rifle. A metal storm clip will be limited to weapons with exactly the same barrel length. |
Why not? If you have a common barrel mount with a detachable stock and optional barrel rest, you should be able to attach a barrel of pretty much any length to your gun. In fact, if your barrel mount is designed right, they don't even ahve to be the same calibre barrel! That seems more than flexible enough, to me.
| QUOTE |
| 3)The first bullets in the barrel will have drasticly lower muzzle velocity than later bullets. this will slaughter accuracy. The only way to remedy this is to put a mor epowerful propellent in earlier bullets. This wil make it impossible to break up clips and reload one at a time. |
Or just accept a slower/less accurate bullet for the early shots. They'll have somewhat less penetration value. Oh well. You could also design it such that the ammo only fills the first half of the barrel; the speed/power imparted into a bullet by the propellant is a decreasing function, anyway; you get much more power over the first half of the barrel than from the second. Friction and air pressure build up.
Anyway, re-loading on the fly is not an in-combat thing; you have to ram the bullets down the barrel and seat it correctly over the ignition device, but also, there's no guarantee the barrel is clean enough to JUSTIFY re-loading. You're going to be ramming all sorts of crap down on top of the next bullet. Your best answer is just to un-load it and up-check the barrel first anyway.
| QUOTE |
| 4) Electricaly primed propellent can present its own problems, specificly with tazers and lightning-slinging magicians. The latter isn't much of a problem today but it would be bad to have all your bullets to go off due to electrocution. |
Or, just insulate your barrel mount; then the tazer has to hit the barrel to cause any problem of any kind. And if a mage drops a flame spell onto your ammo, it's gonna go up in ANY gun, so that really isn't a drawback just of these.
| QUOTE |
| 5) It shoots too fast, seriously. With less ammo (5 shots in a rifle, maybe) a ROF of thousands of rounds a second will leave infantrymen reloading every .02 seconds. |
...But on the same token, you don't have to fire them all; fire a couple. This is one of those places where smartlinks and wireless connectivity are priceless; setting the number of bullets to fire and what barrels to fire them from would be a free action at worst.
| QUOTE |
| 6) Without its absurd rate of fire it offers no advantage in smaller calibers and carries far too many disadvantages to be taken seriously. For infantry, it is useless in anything smaller than a grenade launcher. |
See my above posts; it offers the advantage of flexibility. Have a mediocre shot? Shoot one bullet. Have an ambush? Shoot them all, and put him down for the count. That's better than some standard pistols, if not most. It offers all the functionality of a revolver, with the added option being able to burst-fire, and no real drawback; yet revolvers still exist in 2070...
| QUOTE |
| QUOTE 4) Electricaly primed propellent can present its own problems, specificly with tazers and lightning-slinging magicians. The latter isn't much of a problem today but it would be bad to have all your bullets to go off due to electrocution. Or, just insulate your barrel mount; then the tazer has to hit the barrel to cause any problem of any kind. And if a mage drops a flame spell onto your ammo, it's gonna go up in ANY gun, so that really isn't a drawback just of these. |
I beleive the worry was a lightning bolt setting off all of the shots at once.
| QUOTE (neko128) |
| No more useless than, say, a break-action shotgun or a revolver. |
A Metal Storm handgun may compare favorably to a revolver, I won't try to argue there. That alone would justify the existence of a few such handgun designs (like the Sakura Fubuki) and these being around in decent numbers. But I would like to make sure everyone keeps in mind how common revolvers are these days when you look at LEOs and armed forces, so people don't get too excited.
| QUOTE (neko128) |
| Or just accept a slower/less accurate bullet for the early shots. |
You could do this with a handgun, where complete lack of accuracy beyond some 50 meters wouldn't be as big of a problem, but there's really no point. As you said yourself, reloading the barrels would not be possible in the field, so you might as well preload all the barrels with varying amounts of propellant.
| QUOTE (neko128) |
| You could also design it such that the ammo only fills the first half of the barrel [...] |
That's how it'll be done anyway. You'd have to put in a hell of a lot more, and a different kind of, propellant to get the same muzzle velocity with just 3" of barrel as you would with 8". The MV variation would be insane, to the tune of 300fps with handguns.
| QUOTE (neko128) |
| See my above posts; it offers the advantage of flexibility. |
I assume that this was in response to the first sentence of the sixth point and you still agree that "For infantry, it is useless in anything smaller than a grenade launcher"?
| QUOTE (Clyde) |
| Of course, a Metal Storm gun has to be computer controlled so hackers will have a field day |
If it's a remote controlled gun, then it certainly has to be computer controlled, but not necessarily if it's handheld. At its simplest, it could function like the Remington EtronX -- that doesn't look like a hacker could do much with it.
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) | ||
I assume that this was in response to the first sentence of the sixth point and you still agree that "For infantry, it is useless in anything smaller than a grenade launcher"? |
It was indeed directed at the first sentence. I do disagree with the second, however, I think it's a viable and flexible replacement to pistols or any magazine- or break-action weapons. There are trade-offs, sure, and it's not flat-out better; but it has its up-sides. And, of course, it is quite a good short-duration area denial weapon. The one place where I feel it just flat-out loses is long-arms - machine guns, rifles, assault rifles, etcetera. Too much of their utility is based on the length of the barrel (and the accuracy/power that imparts), plus a 2- or 3-foot metal storm barrel is far less viable to carry in bulk than, say, a 6- or 8-inch one.
| QUOTE (Aku) | ||
I beleive the worry was a lightning bolt setting off all of the shots at once. |
Yes, I realized. However, I was just pointing out that while lightning would still be a potential threat to the metal storm, it's no more so than fire is to a normal weapon - except that if the metal storm is discharged, all the bullets discharge down the barrel, while if a normal weapon discharges, all the bullets destroy the weapon catastrophically.
It would not be hard to build a breech-loaded metalstorm weapon or something like that. (So you don't have to carry multiple barrels, just cartridges).
You could probably even build a gun similiar to an automatic rifle, where instead of single shots a metalstorm cartridge containing numerous shots is loaded...
You could probably even build a gun similiar to an automatic rifle, where instead of single shots a metalstorm cartridge containing numerous shots is loaded...
| QUOTE (Butterblume) |
| It would not be hard to build a breech-loaded metalstorm weapon or something like that. |
It wouldn't? I'm sure Metal Storm would be glad to hear that.
| QUOTE (neko128) |
| [...] except that if the metal storm is discharged, all the bullets discharge down the barrel, while if a normal weapon discharges, all the bullets destroy the weapon catastrophically. |
I seriously doubt the barrel of a Metal Storm weapon could handle the pressure of all the cartridges igniting at the same time.
One of the other possibilities presented in a MS tech hand gun is the ability for unconventional designs. It would be trivial to have a hand gun with a bull-pup-ish design (if such a thing would help a hand gun), or even a grip on an adjustable rail so you can balance the gun which ever way works best. Barrels on the top and bottom to fire at the same time to improve accuracy. The odd designs could be used for increased concealability or to assist in recoil compensation, and while they may not be any easier than a revolver, the performance increase in the designed area could be popular.
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) |
| I seriously doubt the barrel of a Metal Storm weapon could handle the pressure of all the cartridges igniting at the same time. |
Actually, it's been done. In their 36 barrel prototype they fired all 36 barrels (each had 5 rounds in them) in one go for a 1 million rpm demo.
| QUOTE |
| I seriously doubt the barrel of a Metal Storm weapon could handle the pressure of all the cartridges igniting at the same time. |
Given that they tested their 40mm platform firing at "1 million rounds per minute (hypothetical)" as they called it - I.E. lobbed every round in every barrel in the assembly as fast as they could (it sounded like one very loud pop), I don't. They called it "hypothetical" because... well, it was over too quick to test the sustained firing rate for longer than a tenth of a second.
When you have an electrical firing system, firing 'as fast as you can' effectively means 'everything at once'. While the pressure tolerance might be less for a rifle, they pretty effectively proved the 40mm platform could handle it.
Edit: Damn, Zeitgeist beat me out by seconds.
I didn't notice that test, where did you find it? [Right, the 36 barrel stack, which makes for about 30,000rpm per barrel.] The highest RoF quote for a single 40mm barrel that I could find was 30,000rpm. That's 500 shots per second, which means the previous projectile has traveled something like 15cm before each shot. That's a completely different situation from having all the rounds go off at the exact same time. The pressure the barrel has to deal with in a simultaneous ignition is orders of magnitude greater than with even the highest cyclic RoF fire.
Thanks for all the input!!
However, I wasn't really trying to start a new debate on the merits or flaws of the MS technology in a handgun.
I got some good answers on whether area denial in an arcology would be possible. Would there be drones using the high rate of fire for slugs and not grenades?
Thanks,
However, I wasn't really trying to start a new debate on the merits or flaws of the MS technology in a handgun.
I got some good answers on whether area denial in an arcology would be possible. Would there be drones using the high rate of fire for slugs and not grenades?
Thanks,
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) |
| I didn't notice that test, where did you find it? [Right, the 36 barrel stack, which makes for about 30,000rpm per barrel.] The highest RoF quote for a single 40mm barrel that I could find was 30,000rpm. That's 500 shots per second, which means the previous projectile has traveled something like 15cm before each shot. That's a completely different situation from having all the rounds go off at the exact same time. The pressure the barrel has to deal with in a simultaneous ignition is orders of magnitude greater than with even the highest cyclic RoF fire. |
I admit I'm not up on my structural engineering when it comes to gun barrel design, but this doesn't sound correct. Can you back it up with math?
| QUOTE (neko128) |
| I admit I'm not up on my structural engineering when it comes to gun barrel design, but this doesn't sound correct. Can you back it up with math? |
I can't give you an equation on that, but it seems obvious when you consider the volume available for the expansion of the propellant gases. Having an 3cm gap between the projectiles instead of 18cm means 6 times as much pressure, and as you work backwards to the last round in the stack that keeps getting multiplied.
| QUOTE (Alex) |
| Would there be drones using the high rate of fire for slugs and not grenades? |
A gatling gun is better suited for that -- it's as reliable, more accurate, and should be both smaller and lighter when you're going for thousands of rounds of ammo. If you don't need much ammo then the Metal Storm system might have an edge in size and weight, so if you want a drone that only delivers a short spray of total area saturation then MS might be better.
It would seem like you could build a magazine-fed or revolving action for a MS rifle... think of how a normal automatic rifle or revolver shotgun (yeah, I realize those went out with the turn of the century, stick with me on this) operates, except replace the standard shell with a MS cassette/preload holding n rounds of ammunition. With the automatic, once the cassette is depleted, the gun would cycle open (using either gas or, since it's teh futar, electronic operation), eject the cassette, and load a new one into the "chamber." In the revolving action, you'd have several "cylinders" loaded with these cassettes, and the gun would rotate to the next one when the current cassette was depleted, or have different ammunition types loaded in some of the cylinders, allowing for operator selection. You save most of the weight involved in a "full-barrel" MS system by having only a single, robust barrel forwards of the cassette itself, and simply moving new cassettes into position in line with it as you continue to fire.
Actually, O'Dwyer (The founder of Metal Storm) holds patents regarding just this.
(the wikipedia stated that, so i went browsing the sites of the us patent office...).
(the wikipedia stated that, so i went browsing the sites of the us patent office...).
| QUOTE ("Alex") |
| I got some good answers on whether area denial in an arcology would be possible. Would there be drones using the high rate of fire for slugs and not grenades? |
Sure. After all, MS is the ultimate weapon technology for drones.
But, like i said before, it is probably better to just ignore this technology in Shadowrun. I don't feel it can be incorporated in the existing SR rules set. Wouldn't be much fun if the runners would die instantly when hit by a metal storm...
After going to their site and watching that 1,000,000 ROF video I was quite impressed.
But I see only limited applications for this kind of system. To high of a rate of fire is a waste and lower rates of fire are better handled by other more standard platforms.
But it would have some very logical uses still.
It would make a great hold out pistol, smaller then normal and more fire power for its size then normally possible.
Great for real small drones with a very limited space for its size could be used for things such as Assassination and such that have need of stealth and small visibility where one shot might not do it.
And as a massive mortar platform, to saturate an entire area of incoming troops or pulling up a truck and launching into some bodies compound from a short range away for a suprise attack while people are eating in their tents would be very effective and sudden. Now thats what I call a drive by shooting.
There might be a few more even but I would say this system is very, very situational, very specialized indeed in its uses.
I think it would be interesting to see if they could make a flechette version of its ammo.
I don't know if anyone has seen the videos of the helo's in nam firing large numbers of tubes with row upon row of wads of flechettes stacked in them. They said that was one of the most effective weapons of the war and one of the cheapest, they took a nail and added a small fin. But because it didn't have the big flashy boom boom effect it was hardly even a thought in the news.
When they interviewed enemy troops, they said that it sounded like thousands of bees in the air and next thing you know the sky was filled with needles that killed all in sight. They said whole areas that were quiet for nothing larger then a insect was alive in them.
With the variable firing rate they could set that thing for, would be a nasty little weapon mounted on anything from UAVs to remote tripods for that anti-personal saturation effect.
But I see only limited applications for this kind of system. To high of a rate of fire is a waste and lower rates of fire are better handled by other more standard platforms.
But it would have some very logical uses still.
It would make a great hold out pistol, smaller then normal and more fire power for its size then normally possible.
Great for real small drones with a very limited space for its size could be used for things such as Assassination and such that have need of stealth and small visibility where one shot might not do it.
And as a massive mortar platform, to saturate an entire area of incoming troops or pulling up a truck and launching into some bodies compound from a short range away for a suprise attack while people are eating in their tents would be very effective and sudden. Now thats what I call a drive by shooting.
There might be a few more even but I would say this system is very, very situational, very specialized indeed in its uses.
I think it would be interesting to see if they could make a flechette version of its ammo.
I don't know if anyone has seen the videos of the helo's in nam firing large numbers of tubes with row upon row of wads of flechettes stacked in them. They said that was one of the most effective weapons of the war and one of the cheapest, they took a nail and added a small fin. But because it didn't have the big flashy boom boom effect it was hardly even a thought in the news.
When they interviewed enemy troops, they said that it sounded like thousands of bees in the air and next thing you know the sky was filled with needles that killed all in sight. They said whole areas that were quiet for nothing larger then a insect was alive in them.
With the variable firing rate they could set that thing for, would be a nasty little weapon mounted on anything from UAVs to remote tripods for that anti-personal saturation effect.
I fail to see how these are the "ultimate drone weapons." Asides from the example of getting a lot of shots into a small package (since you don't need a magazine), once you get to the point where size isn't so much of an issue you'd think a belt feed would provide more sustained firepower, since you don't have to keep re-inventing the barrel for every n rounds you want to have on hand. Something like a minigun should provide you with the rate of fire you need for most targets, and the capacity you want for continual operation (most drones would want to be able to stay on the perimeter and keep doing their job beyond the first burst of fire).
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) | ||
I can't give you an equation on that, but it seems obvious when you consider the volume available for the expansion of the propellant gases. Having an 3cm gap between the projectiles instead of 18cm means 6 times as much pressure, and as you work backwards to the last round in the stack that keeps getting multiplied. |
But there's an outlet for that pressure - the bullet in front of it. Assume each bullet blocks the barrel and the rear is completely blocked, so the only actual outlet is the mouth. The propellant for the rear-most bullet will push forwards on the bullet until the pressure in front of it is greater than the pressure behind it, so it'll go a long way to equalizing it, and that pressure will propagate forwards quickly. More to the point, while the total pressure across the ENTIRE barrel will be much higher, the pressure will be segregated by the bullets, and I don't see why the pressure at any given point should be significantly higher than for firing a single bullet.
| QUOTE (Shrike30) |
| once you get to the point where size isn't so much of an issue you'd think a belt feed would provide more sustained firepower |
Like mentioned before, just belt feed metalstorm cartridges.
| QUOTE (Shrike30) |
| since you don't have to keep re-inventing the barrel for every n rounds you want to have on hand. |
I might miss your point here, but an ordinary gun works just like this ... just for n=1 rounds.
| QUOTE (Shrike30) |
| Something like a minigun should provide you with the rate of fire you need for most targets |
Against slow moving targets, like metahumans, sure.
| QUOTE (Shrike30) |
| and the capacity you want for continual operation (most drones would want to be able to stay on the perimeter and keep doing their job beyond the first burst of fire). |
I am not really sure which kind of target needs, just say 1000 rounds, from a gatling gun?
Its not the ultamaite weapon for drones, why in the world would anyone think that? But it would be practical for realy tiny drones that can only afford so much weight vs firepower. Or a quick burst effect in the case of Flechettes and then get the hell out of doge.
For the most part the standard methods we use today are probably the best at what they do, and only in certain situations would you use Metal Storm.
For the most part the standard methods we use today are probably the best at what they do, and only in certain situations would you use Metal Storm.
| QUOTE |
| That's 500 shots per second, which means the previous projectile has traveled something like 15cm before each shot. That's a completely different situation from having all the rounds go off at the exact same time. The pressure the barrel has to deal with in a simultaneous ignition is orders of magnitude greater than with even the highest cyclic RoF fire. |
That's true, but I don't think you could reliably get the ammo stacks to cook off any faster than that. What with the resistance of the casing, the speed of electricity along the barrel, propellant ignition time (however fractional that may be), and where the electricity struck to begin with...
I just don't think it's feasible to say all the rounds would 'go off at one time' in a literal sense - it would just seem that way to an outside observer. I mean, striking the side of a conductive barrel with electricity will not ignite everything at once. If for no other reason than the outermost rounds will already be in motion by the time they combust as well.
Also something to consider: the design of Metal Storm barrels themselves. From the Wiki:
"Each skirt rests on the front of the following projectile forming a seal. The backwards force created as propellant charges are fired 'ahead' in the barrel compresses this seal, preventing hot gases from prematurely igniting the following charges."
So, unless a charge strikes all primers simultaneously without igniting any particular round before the next, I'm not sure it would even be possible.
| QUOTE |
| Having an 3cm gap between the projectiles instead of 18cm means 6 times as much pressure, and as you work backwards to the last round in the stack that keeps getting multiplied. |
Edit: I totally just deleted this paragraph because I realized my math was all wrong. Yes. 6 times as much pressure is accurate. This is why I shouldn't try to do physics on 4 hours of sleep.
I can't reliably say if the barrel would break, in final analysis. But I don't think it would. I can't imagine it would be good for the barrel, though.
And, for the record, I think most jobs metal storm can do would probably be done much more cheaply by rotary cannons.
| QUOTE (Butterblume) |
| Like mentioned before, just belt feed metalstorm cartridges. |
That doesn't give you sustained high ROF, though... you have an interrupt in the really high ROF that you get from a MS gun every time it's got to change cassettes equal to the locking time of the mechanism. When I put forth the idea of cycling in new cassettes, I mostly meant for a burst-fire weapon, not one that's intended to go full cyclic.
| QUOTE |
| I might miss your point here, but an ordinary gun works just like this ... just for n=1 rounds. |
I think you did. What I was saying was that the standard MS gun works by having n rounds per barrel, so if you want a capacity of 50n, you need 50 barrels. With a standard-feed gun you only need 1 barrel. With a MS-cassette-fed gun, you would only need 1 barrel, but your burst ROF and cyclic ROF would not be the same, as i mentioned above.
| QUOTE |
| Against slow moving targets, like metahumans, sure. |
What're we talking about sending the drones up against? I'd think targeting and tracking speed would be your main limiting factors against high-speed targets right up until you're trying a stunt like missile interception.
| QUOTE |
| I am not really sure which kind of target needs, just say 1000 rounds, from a gatling gun? |
Working under the assumption that these weapons are being developed for security/military purposes, how about a team of shadowrunners? A heavy civilian vehicle? A platoon of enemy infantry?
Having to have a drone leave a firefight because it's out of ammunition means you're down a combatant for no good reason. When you're running through a hundred rounds of ammunition a second, 1000 rounds is not going to last very long if the drone gets called upon to suppress a target or attack a vehicle.
| QUOTE (neko128) |
| More to the point, while the total pressure across the ENTIRE barrel will be much higher, the pressure will be segregated by the bullets, and I don't see why the pressure at any given point should be significantly higher than for firing a single bullet. |
I agree: In this scenario, with the assumption that the gas generation is instantaneous, the peak pressure on any particular cross-section of the barrel would not be greater. Each section would just be exposed to the pressures several (a bit under 6, I'd imagine) times as long as with a single shot. In reality, of course, the propellants do not gasify instantaneously, so the longer exposure to pressure also means greater peak pressure.
For a real life example, dirt, sand or water close to the chamber in the barrel will cause a firearm to blow up because the obstacle cannot move out of the way quickly enough to release the pressure before the metal of the barrel gives way. Thinking of a water-blocked barrel with the same logic as you used above, the pressure at any given point shouldn't be any higher, right? Yet it can cause an M4 to disintegrate.
| QUOTE (Adarael) |
| I just don't think it's feasible to say all the rounds would 'go off at one time' in a literal sense - it would just seem that way to an outside observer. I mean, striking the side of a conductive barrel with electricity will not ignite everything at once. |
I think you'll agree that electricity will run through the barrel faster than ~40m/s (assuming 500 rounds per second and 8cm separation between 40mm rounds). And although it isn't really instantaneous, since it doesn't quite move at c, it's close enough.
| QUOTE (Adarael) |
| It's actually higher than 6 times, since Pressure = force/area, and area decreases dramatically in the case of your example, since the majority of area is coming from 'depth' rather than the radius of the tube. |
I'm not sure I follow. If you shorten a cylinder to 1/6th the length, its total surface area is reduced by less than 5/6ths. Anyway, I was simply abusing Boyle's Law.
| QUOTE (Butterblume) |
| I am not really sure which kind of target needs, just say 1000 rounds, from a gatling gun? |
If Shrike30 did not convince you yet, consider the common ammo bin sizes for rifle caliber miniguns -- they tend to run between 2000 and 5000+.
Ignore my math, I was trying to deal with vectors and failing. I edited the above post to reflect the fact that I was doing shit all wrong.
You're right about electricity, but in order for it to ignite past the insulation of the interior charge strip that usually sets the round off, wouldn't it need to take a fraction of a second - between 1/1000th and 1/100th - to build enough capacitance to arc? And it would arc at the localized point of impact first, before arcing elsewhere? Otherwise it would just flow down the exterior metal and ground out, neh?
Or am I missing something in my understanding of electricity?
You're right about electricity, but in order for it to ignite past the insulation of the interior charge strip that usually sets the round off, wouldn't it need to take a fraction of a second - between 1/1000th and 1/100th - to build enough capacitance to arc? And it would arc at the localized point of impact first, before arcing elsewhere? Otherwise it would just flow down the exterior metal and ground out, neh?
Or am I missing something in my understanding of electricity?
I think you are, but I don't know enough about metalstorm to correct you.
What propellant to the metalstorm rounds use, and what ignites it? Is it heat, current, or spark?
And it doesn't build capacitance. It can accumulate charge, but the capacitance won't change unless there is some kind of physical change in the system, such as a bullet firing.
What propellant to the metalstorm rounds use, and what ignites it? Is it heat, current, or spark?
And it doesn't build capacitance. It can accumulate charge, but the capacitance won't change unless there is some kind of physical change in the system, such as a bullet firing.
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) |
| For a real life example, dirt, sand or water close to the chamber in the barrel will cause a firearm to blow up because the obstacle cannot move out of the way quickly enough to release the pressure before the metal of the barrel gives way. Thinking of a water-blocked barrel with the same logic as you used above, the pressure at any given point shouldn't be any higher, right? Yet it can cause an M4 to disintegrate. |
No, it'd be higher; my scenario assumes the front-most bullet is unimpeded in escaping the barrel, and thus pressure in front of that bullet is effectively zero. A water-blocked barrel does not meet that condition; thus, the pressure can't escape; thus the exploding barrel.
Okay, I'll try this one more time: The water cannot move out of the way fast enough. Similarly the projectiles in front of each of the latter rounds in the stack will not move out of the way fast enough.
Assume there are 5 rounds in the barrel, A-E with A closest to the muzzle. If they are ignited at the same instant, the pressures start building up equally between all the projectiles and between E and the back of barrel, and so the spacing between all the projectiles and between E and the back of the barrel stays the same (they push away from each other with equal force). Only the projectile from round A can move freely towards the muzzle -- the rest simply follow projectile A at even spacing until it clears the muzzle.
When A leaves the barrel, having taken as much time to do so as it would when fired normally (we're assuming the same pressure on any one point, right?), the barrel is still divided in 5 separate volumes by the remaining projectiles B-E. 4 of those volumes are now filled with as much gas as would be filling the the entire barrel from the nose of the stacked projectile B to the muzzle when projectile A is fired normally -- ie there are now four sections where there's well under half the volume for the gases to expand in as they'd have when this much time has passed from ignition on a normal firing.
The result from the barrel's point of view is the same as there being an obstacle in the barrel that makes it take several times as long as normal for the projectile to clear the muzzle.
Assume there are 5 rounds in the barrel, A-E with A closest to the muzzle. If they are ignited at the same instant, the pressures start building up equally between all the projectiles and between E and the back of barrel, and so the spacing between all the projectiles and between E and the back of the barrel stays the same (they push away from each other with equal force). Only the projectile from round A can move freely towards the muzzle -- the rest simply follow projectile A at even spacing until it clears the muzzle.
When A leaves the barrel, having taken as much time to do so as it would when fired normally (we're assuming the same pressure on any one point, right?), the barrel is still divided in 5 separate volumes by the remaining projectiles B-E. 4 of those volumes are now filled with as much gas as would be filling the the entire barrel from the nose of the stacked projectile B to the muzzle when projectile A is fired normally -- ie there are now four sections where there's well under half the volume for the gases to expand in as they'd have when this much time has passed from ignition on a normal firing.
The result from the barrel's point of view is the same as there being an obstacle in the barrel that makes it take several times as long as normal for the projectile to clear the muzzle.
I'm actually really tempted to e-mail the people who make Metal Storm and ask them this precise question, because now I'm really curious.
Hey, AE, I got a question for you.
In your experience, catastrophic failures due to barrel blockage result in... what, precisely? All the photos I've seen (which is like, 3, I.E. not many) seem to have a blown out chamber/reciever area, but not the barrel. Also, these guns were pistols, so I have no idea what a rifle experiencing such failure would look like.
Hey, AE, I got a question for you.
In your experience, catastrophic failures due to barrel blockage result in... what, precisely? All the photos I've seen (which is like, 3, I.E. not many) seem to have a blown out chamber/reciever area, but not the barrel. Also, these guns were pistols, so I have no idea what a rifle experiencing such failure would look like.
I admit I do not have first-hand experience of a firearm blowing up. The only video of such a failure that I've seen is the one where the barrel of an M60 ruptures after some 800 rounds of cyclic fire. You can see a blown out dirt-blocked barrel of what looks like an (ex-)Colt Commando here. Here's a Ruger .40 S&W carbine with a barrel that was ruptured because of a squib load (earlier bullets lodged in the barrel when the next ones were fired). Here's an M1A which simply disintegrated because of bad ammo [or perhaps more to do with bad steel in the barrel/chamber].
I think what you were getting at is that since a Metal Storm weapon only has a barrel and no breech, it wouldn't be as weak as a conventional firearm and not as prone to exploding because of blockage. If that makes a difference, AFAICT it isn't enough of a one to save the Metal Storm gun when it faces serious overpressure.
Raygun probably knows better.
The only video of such a failure that I've seen is the one where the barrel of an M60 ruptures after some 800 rounds of cyclic fire. You can see a blown out dirt-blocked barrel of what looks like an (ex-)Colt Commando here. Here's a Ruger .40 S&W carbine with a barrel that was ruptured because of a squib load (earlier bullets lodged in the barrel when the next ones were fired). Here's an M1A which simply disintegrated because of bad ammo [or perhaps more to do with bad steel in the barrel/chamber].I think what you were getting at is that since a Metal Storm weapon only has a barrel and no breech, it wouldn't be as weak as a conventional firearm and not as prone to exploding because of blockage. If that makes a difference, AFAICT it isn't enough of a one to save the Metal Storm gun when it faces serious overpressure.
Raygun probably knows better.
from what i know about cannons and stuff blowing up (not much, but i have picked up some over the years), the breach will happen at the weakest point.
the "problem" of metal storm is that its one solid metal pipe (much like those old, frontloaded cannons). so most likely the breach will happen very close to where the original detonation happens, basicly because thats the same that happend when a cannon was misfired (and therefor you will often see simpler cannons be made with a extra band of metal added on the outside where the detonation happens to reinforce that area).
what i dont know is this: can the propellant used in metal storm-like system detonate if it gets enough pressure? if so one can in theory have a kind of cascade detonation. you fire of the first round, the barrel is blocked and the detonation therefor push the next bullet in line backwards, compressing the propellant until detonation (unless the surounding barrel give first).
the "problem" of metal storm is that its one solid metal pipe (much like those old, frontloaded cannons). so most likely the breach will happen very close to where the original detonation happens, basicly because thats the same that happend when a cannon was misfired (and therefor you will often see simpler cannons be made with a extra band of metal added on the outside where the detonation happens to reinforce that area).
what i dont know is this: can the propellant used in metal storm-like system detonate if it gets enough pressure? if so one can in theory have a kind of cascade detonation. you fire of the first round, the barrel is blocked and the detonation therefor push the next bullet in line backwards, compressing the propellant until detonation (unless the surounding barrel give first).
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) |
| Okay, I'll try this one more time: The water cannot move out of the way fast enough. Similarly the projectiles in front of each of the latter rounds in the stack will not move out of the way fast enough. Assume there are 5 rounds in the barrel, A-E with A closest to the muzzle. If they are ignited at the same instant, the pressures start building up equally between all the projectiles and between E and the back of barrel, and so the spacing between all the projectiles and between E and the back of the barrel stays the same (they push away from each other with equal force). Only the projectile from round A can move freely towards the muzzle -- the rest simply follow projectile A at even spacing until it clears the muzzle. When A leaves the barrel, having taken as much time to do so as it would when fired normally (we're assuming the same pressure on any one point, right?), the barrel is still divided in 5 separate volumes by the remaining projectiles B-E. 4 of those volumes are now filled with as much gas as would be filling the the entire barrel from the nose of the stacked projectile B to the muzzle when projectile A is fired normally -- ie there are now four sections where there's well under half the volume for the gases to expand in as they'd have when this much time has passed from ignition on a normal firing. The result from the barrel's point of view is the same as there being an obstacle in the barrel that makes it take several times as long as normal for the projectile to clear the muzzle. |
You might be right, that the bullets don't move fast enough. Being a programmer and not an engineer, I really just don't know.
However, there's enough doubt in my mind for me not to take it on faith. And even if igniting them all at the same time does that, igniting them even a few milliseconds apart might make all the difference in the world, while still being simulatenous enough for all intents and purposes.
Hobgoblin. The propellant in Metal Storm is specifically designed not to do exactly what you suggest. (I'm reading this off their website, BTW) If it worked as you suggested (which I'm not even sure if it could work, but if it did) you would have only one mode of fire - everything all at once. And while the everything all at once 1000000+ rounds per minute is cool, it is rarely the option that you actually want to use.
As for the electronic ignition delay thing, I haven't figured out if the propellant is ignited by heat, spark, or current. If it's heat, there will be a small delay. If it's from a spark, there would be a smaller delay as whatever it was built up enough charge to spark (if using a fundamentally capacitive element) or not (if using an inductive element) I can explain it if anyone cares, but suffice to say there are ways to generate a spark near-enough to instantaneously, it's just not generally done that way. If it responds to current, it should be nearly instanteneous as well.
As for the question of how fast electricity will move through the wire, someone said "close to c" c being the speed of light. The electricity (not the electrons) will move at the speed of light, but that's the speed of light through the conductor, not the speed of light through a vacuum (the archetypical "speed of light") It varies depending on the conductor, but if I remember correctly 1/3 c is a fairly typical value. In other words, still so fast it just doesn't matter. Nothing in this problem is occuring at anything near the time scale where we have to assume the current is anything less than instantaneous.
As for the electronic ignition delay thing, I haven't figured out if the propellant is ignited by heat, spark, or current. If it's heat, there will be a small delay. If it's from a spark, there would be a smaller delay as whatever it was built up enough charge to spark (if using a fundamentally capacitive element) or not (if using an inductive element) I can explain it if anyone cares, but suffice to say there are ways to generate a spark near-enough to instantaneously, it's just not generally done that way. If it responds to current, it should be nearly instanteneous as well.
As for the question of how fast electricity will move through the wire, someone said "close to c" c being the speed of light. The electricity (not the electrons) will move at the speed of light, but that's the speed of light through the conductor, not the speed of light through a vacuum (the archetypical "speed of light") It varies depending on the conductor, but if I remember correctly 1/3 c is a fairly typical value. In other words, still so fast it just doesn't matter. Nothing in this problem is occuring at anything near the time scale where we have to assume the current is anything less than instantaneous.
| QUOTE (Moon-Hawk) |
| Hobgoblin. The propellant in Metal Storm is specifically designed not to do exactly what you suggest. (I'm reading this off their website, BTW) If it worked as you suggested (which I'm not even sure if it could work, but if it did) you would have only one mode of fire - everything all at once. And while the everything all at once 1000000+ rounds per minute is cool, it is rarely the option that you actually want to use. |
silly me, i should have tought of checking that page...
In your defense, I find their webpage to be painfully vague about how, exactly, the system works. I consider it lucky that they just happened to mention that one little fact.
| QUOTE (Moon-Hawk) |
| It varies depending on the conductor, but if I remember correctly 1/3 c is a fairly typical value. In other words, still so fast it just doesn't matter. |
The only figures I could find on a quick Google suggested something closer to 0.99...c through a copper wire. As you said though, it doesn't matter.
The Metal Storm has been changed drastically, it used to be a lot more informative. I guess this is part of their move towards a more serious and investor-friendly public face.
As I said, it depends on the type of copper.
The magnetic permeability of copper is almost exactly that of vacuum (which is maybe what the source you're looking at is saying), but you need the dielectric constant of copper in the equation, too, which varies widely. If the dielectric constant of the copper is, say 9 (typical), then the speed of light will be 1/3. Obviously different coppers will have very different values.
Of course, who the heck knows what kind of conductors they're using in 2070.
Do you remember how the Metal Storm detonators worked? I'm looking for something more specific than "electrical ignition" because as I've said, that can mean a lot of things.
The magnetic permeability of copper is almost exactly that of vacuum (which is maybe what the source you're looking at is saying), but you need the dielectric constant of copper in the equation, too, which varies widely. If the dielectric constant of the copper is, say 9 (typical), then the speed of light will be 1/3. Obviously different coppers will have very different values.
Of course, who the heck knows what kind of conductors they're using in 2070.
Do you remember how the Metal Storm detonators worked? I'm looking for something more specific than "electrical ignition" because as I've said, that can mean a lot of things.
Okay, you sound like you know what you're talking about. Been a while since I dabbled in electricity.
As far as I can figure, the Metal Storm system still uses electric primers, which function with the same basic principle as electric detonators used for demolitions. The pyrotechnic mixture in the primer is conductive, and the current passing through it ignites it.
As far as I can figure, the Metal Storm system still uses electric primers, which function with the same basic principle as electric detonators used for demolitions. The pyrotechnic mixture in the primer is conductive, and the current passing through it ignites it.
Anything involving the speed of light is a pain in the ass. Electromagnetic waves always travel at the speed of light, but what speed that really is is highly variable and wonky.
So then, from your description of the primer, I would say that ignition speed/timing is probably fast and precise enough that it is not the limiting factor in shot-spacing, and it has more to do with getting the first bullet out of the way before the next fires. Of course, this is all just educated guessing.
So then, from your description of the primer, I would say that ignition speed/timing is probably fast and precise enough that it is not the limiting factor in shot-spacing, and it has more to do with getting the first bullet out of the way before the next fires. Of course, this is all just educated guessing.
AE: I actually wasn't trying to imply anything with my question, I was just curious. I don't actually know enough about the materials they used to construct the MS 36-barrel platform to make more than an educated guess about it. And I was curious if you had any cool pictures, which you did!
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) |
| Okay, I'll try this one more time: The water cannot move out of the way fast enough. Similarly the projectiles in front of each of the latter rounds in the stack will not move out of the way fast enough. Assume there are 5 rounds in the barrel, A-E with A closest to the muzzle. If they are ignited at the same instant, the pressures start building up equally between all the projectiles and between E and the back of barrel, and so the spacing between all the projectiles and between E and the back of the barrel stays the same (they push away from each other with equal force). Only the projectile from round A can move freely towards the muzzle -- the rest simply follow projectile A at even spacing until it clears the muzzle. When A leaves the barrel, having taken as much time to do so as it would when fired normally (we're assuming the same pressure on any one point, right?), the barrel is still divided in 5 separate volumes by the remaining projectiles B-E. 4 of those volumes are now filled with as much gas as would be filling the the entire barrel from the nose of the stacked projectile B to the muzzle when projectile A is fired normally -- ie there are now four sections where there's well under half the volume for the gases to expand in as they'd have when this much time has passed from ignition on a normal firing. The result from the barrel's point of view is the same as there being an obstacle in the barrel that makes it take several times as long as normal for the projectile to clear the muzzle. |
Thought experiment,
Get a tube, and pack it with ball bearings and springs, pin the end.
____________I_____________
WOWOWOWO I
__________________________
Remove the pin = simultaneous pressure release from all springs
____________I____________
\ / \ / O \ / \ / O \ / \ / O \ / \ / O
_________________________
Each bullet has moved less according to how close to the back it was.
Also, Yamaha Sakura Fubuki, p307, SR4.
That experiment is not analogous. If you block the opening so that the spring is unable to expand outward it remains compressed and retains its potential mechanical energy. Yet, if you block the opening of a gun barrel so that expanding gasses ar unable to escape then you will have a catostrophic failure somewhere in that weapon and the gas will escape from the resulting breech.
Expanding gasses are not springs. Springs are solid. Gasses are gas. They behave in fundamentally different manners.
Also, we know about the Fubuki
Expanding gasses are not springs. Springs are solid. Gasses are gas. They behave in fundamentally different manners.
Also, we know about the Fubuki
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.