First commercial Gauss Rifle available.

Trebuchet said:
Watched the first vid a few minutes ago. Hopefully it'll separate some MAGA suckers from their money.
If it's gonna be smoothbore, use spherical projectiles. That's only been known for, what, 600 years?
Click to expand...
Longer means better mass/area ratio, velocity retention and range.


Also it's not a 'rifle' due to the lack of rifling. More a gauss musket.
 
Could get projectile stabilisation by having one end rough. The other end should have a point. Then to make the cannon useful the velocity of the projectiles need to go up.

Increase its size and it would make a very good anti-tank weapon. Or something to shoot at incoming projectiles. Its power could come from the engine in the vehicle. Its advantage over other weapons would be that its ammunition would be smaller as its power would be external.
 
I know very little about ammunition and guns apart from one end is the bad end.

What sort of revolutions are you talking about to make it more stable? It’s quite possible to spin something being held in a magnetic field, so could a “spinning module” be added that then feeds into the accelerating segments? Would that help the stability?
 
Darat said:
I know very little about ammunition and guns apart from one end is the bad end.

What sort of revolutions are you talking about to make it more stable? It’s quite possible to spin something being held in a magnetic field, so could a “spinning module” be added that then feeds into the accelerating segments? Would that help the stability?
Click to expand...

IIRC from watching the interview a few days ago that was one of the developments the manufacturers were looking into.
 
Darat said:
I know very little about ammunition and guns apart from one end is the bad end.

What sort of revolutions are you talking about to make it more stable? It’s quite possible to spin something being held in a magnetic field, so could a “spinning module” be added that then feeds into the accelerating segments? Would that help the stability?
Click to expand...

I think that is the line they are perusing. There was mention in the interview of using the same method as an electric motor uses to spin the rotor. That would make the ammunition a lot more complex and expensive though. At the moment any steel bar of the right diameter can be used.
I thought that maybe the round could have a spin put on it in the 'chamber' before it is accelerated down the barrel.
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
I know very little about ammunition and guns apart from one end is the bad end.

What sort of revolutions are you talking about to make it more stable? It’s quite possible to spin something being held in a magnetic field, so could a “spinning module” be added that then feeds into the accelerating segments? Would that help the stability?
Click to expand...
It depends.....:)

Ballistics is moderately complicated: the "correct" spin rate depends on the projectile's l/w ratio and mass. Those factors, which are also linked by projectile density, along with projectile shape, determine the "ballistic coefficient", the projectile's ability to retain velocity as it passes through the air.
Generally, pointed, longer bullets have longer ranges as they have their mass combined with a small surface area and maintain velocity. Common rifle bullets have a l/w ratio of 3:1 to 5:1, while handgun bullets are around 2:1.

If you take two bullets, a 2:1 ratio pistol bullet of 11mm calibre (diameter) and a 4:1 5.5mm rifle bullet of the same overall density, the rifle bullet will have half the mass, but twice the mass/area ratio and travel far further. As an aside, lighter high velocity bullets have less recoil for the same energy as slower, heavier, bullets.
This is somewhat simplified.

It should also be remembered that rapidly spinning bullets diverge from a straight line path due to that rotation.
 
catsmate said:
It depends.....:)

Ballistics is moderately complicated: the "correct" spin rate depends on the projectile's l/w ratio and mass. Those factors, which are also linked by projectile density, along with projectile shape, determine the "ballistic coefficient", the projectile's ability to retain velocity as it passes through the air.
Generally, pointed, longer bullets have longer ranges as they have their mass combined with a small surface area and maintain velocity. Common rifle bullets have a l/w ratio of 3:1 to 5:1, while handgun bullets are around 2:1.

If you take two bullets, a 2:1 ratio pistol bullet of 11mm calibre (diameter) and a 4:1 5.5mm rifle bullet of the same overall density, the rifle bullet will have half the mass, but twice the mass/area ratio and travel far further. As an aside, lighter high velocity bullets have less recoil for the same energy as slower, heavier, bullets.
This is somewhat simplified.

It should also be remembered that rapidly spinning bullets diverge from a straight line path due to that rotation.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's a problem that crops up on Forgotten Weapons, InRange and 9-Hole Reviews quite a lot when they talk about accuracy.
For example with old military weapons, they optimised for a particular standard ammunition with a standard weight of projectile and propellant.
Often this is no longer available and it can be difficult to find information on the original loading. It's the same with modern weapons, a rifle optimised for a certain weight and charge will have a rifling twist that won't work well with different loads.

It would be the same for the rounds shot from this gauss rifle. Different sizes and weights of projectile will need a different spin. As it will be done electronically it should be able to flip a switch for different spin rates for different ammo.
 
Watching Ian and his potbellied pals fool around with Gauss guns made me think of antique car buffs trying to drive Stanley Steamers.

But in fact that's not a good analogy, because steam cars actually worked; the technology was mature and if you were a reasonably qualified locomotive engineer you could drive 'em anywhere. I once saw a (undoubtedly wealthy) hobbyist driving his ancient Stanley. He took that old buggy up what pass for hills in Grosse Pointe MI, and it clearly had torque enough to run a power plant. And belched clouds of odorless teakettle steam!

Looked like a lot more fun than 20 lbs of capacitors shooting slugs sideways.
 
Last edited:
A 650 grain 50 caliber projectile moving at about 70 mps (228 fps) with a group size of over six inches at what appears to be a range of 10 yards is rather interesting and sad. :) The non-adjustable laser pointer at the muzzle is especially sad. A scope might be a little better I suppose.

75 ft-lbs of energy at the muzzle. Less than a 22lr at 1000 fps.

Things can only get much better.

Ranb
 
Ranb said:
A 650 grain 50 caliber projectile moving at about 70 mps (228 fps) with a group size of over six inches at what appears to be a range of 10 yards is rather interesting and sad. :) The non-adjustable laser pointer at the muzzle is especially sad. A scope might be a little better I suppose.

75 ft-lbs of energy at the muzzle. Less than a 22lr at 1000 fps.

Things can only get much better.

Ranb
Click to expand...

Without any spin stabilisation there is no point in using a scope.

Things will get better.
 
sackett said:
Watching Ian and his potbellied pals fool around with Gauss guns made me think of antique car buffs trying to drive Stanley Steamers.

But in fact that's not a good analogy, because steam cars actually worked; the technology was mature and if you were a reasonably qualified locomotive engineer you could drive 'em anywhere. I once saw a (undoubtedly wealthy) hobbyist driving his ancient Stanley. He took that old buggy up what pass for hills in Grosse Pointe MI, and it clearly had torque enough to run a power plant. And belched clouds of odorless teakettle steam!

Looked like a lot more fun than 20 lbs of capacitors shooting slugs sideways.
Click to expand...

Steam cars were all crap. They were a complete dead end and not one of them was, or is reliable or efficient. their level of development was about the same as the gauss rifle.
 
He did say they will have a "Production" version is a month. Not counting on much improvement there. But they have to start somewhere.
 
theprestige said:
I'm pretty sure that any space warfare scenario in the foreseeable future, pot shots with small arms will be completely irrelevant. And of course there will be no infantry involved at all.
Click to expand...

I'd never place bets on what technology or strategies will be obsolete in the future. History is full of folks who lost that bet.
 
I really find myself wondering if this is the kind of technology that can be funded through consumer sales.

The shoulder fired gauss cannon they made is sure neato as a novelty, but it's inferior to conventional firearms by every measurement besides "cool factor". I really wonder how many people are going to be wanting to buy these.

I'm assuming there's huge amounts of expensive development that needs to be done to get this product anywhere near being a practical tool, I'm really not seeing how selling a few here and there to curio collectors is going to allow for that to happen.

Ironically, the company folding up would make the few sold perhaps even more collectible. We're seeing the birth of a future Forgotten Weapon.
 
Trebuchet said:
I don't know how I'd prove it but I'm pretty sure my little torsion catapult could throw those slugs at greater velocity than that thing.
Click to expand...

I am sure someone said exactly that about a cannon at some time in the past.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom