First commercial Gauss Rifle available.

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...

Velocity is a lot, but it isn't everything. Size, weight, arming time, reload time, magazine capacity, noise...

The Bushmaster 25mm autocannon hits a lot harder than a puny little AR, but somehow we still equip individual infantry with the latter rather than the former. I wonder why? /s
 
Could one hunt grauss with a gauss?
Or shoot at quail with a rail?
Would a gauss dismember a mauss?
A mass accelerator kill a bull gator?
If one has a range in one's hauss,
Would one dare fire off a gauss?
I don't know, but I'll ask my spauss.
She says no.
 
It seems like it generates quite an electromagnetic pulse when fired. Firing it in your house might do more expensive damage in broken tech than in anything it hit.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
It seems like it generates quite an electromagnetic pulse when fired. Firing it in your house might do more expensive damage in broken tech than in anything it hit.
Click to expand...

I can't wait for the thread "Responsible gun owner fries his own computer."
 
Captain_Swoop said:
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.
Click to expand...

Are you plumb sure of that? Steamers initially outsold gasoline cars. The last steam car company winked out in 1930. The cheapness and operating simplicity of IR-powered cars won out, but not their reliability. (Fix Or Repair Daily. Found On the Road Dead. Buick-Puick. Shoveleraway.) After all, tractive steam engines had been under development through most of the 19th century. Heck, Hiram Maxim powered his 1892 almost-an-airplane with steam.

Launching projectiles magnetically isn't a new idea either. But if somebody really and truly thinks a Gauss shoulder arm is feasible, he faces a helluva steep engineering slope -- still. And he'll have to compete with cartridge arms, which are a terminal technology, i.e., significant improvements are unlikely.

Would I buy a steam car? Hell no! I'd buy one o' them Grouse rifles first.
 
sackett said:
Are you plumb sure of that? Steamers initially outsold gasoline cars. The last steam car company winked out in 1930. The cheapness and operating simplicity of IR-powered cars won out, but not their reliability. (Fix Or Repair Daily. Found On the Road Dead. Buick-Puick. Shoveleraway.) After all, tractive steam engines had been under development through most of the 19th century. Heck, Hiram Maxim powered his 1892 almost-an-airplane with steam.

Launching projectiles magnetically isn't a new idea either. But if somebody really and truly thinks a Gauss shoulder arm is feasible, he faces a helluva steep engineering slope -- still. And he'll have to compete with cartridge arms, which are a terminal technology, i.e., significant improvements are unlikely.

Would I buy a steam car? Hell no! I'd buy one o' them Grouse rifles first.
Click to expand...

'Traction Engines' and 'steam lorries' used different boilers and valve gear arrangements, plus they were a lot bigger.
Steam cars were a lot more fragile and their boilers and drive a lot less developed.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
I am sure someone said exactly that about a cannon at some time in the past.
Click to expand...

theprestige said:
Velocity is a lot, but it isn't everything. Size, weight, arming time, reload time, magazine capacity, noise...

The Bushmaster 25mm autocannon hits a lot harder than a puny little AR, but somehow we still equip individual infantry with the latter rather than the former. I wonder why? /s
Click to expand...

Yeah, reload time is several minutes if I use the winch. On the other hand, if there's another person available it can be done more quickly but less safely by just pulling the arm down by hand.

ETA: And the batteries never need charging!
 
Planigale said:
The major advantage of a gauss rifle is in space warfare. In low g / vacuum you want a weapon that delivers KE in terms of v not m. That minimises the kick back mv vs impact mv2. You lose little in v when using the weapon in vacuum. I assume his will be the standard infantry weapon of the space force.
Click to expand...

Uh, whut? "In low g / vacuum you want a weapon that delivers KE in terms of v not m. " So us a high V low M powder burning firearm. A one kilo pistol and a two ounce cartridge sounds like a lot less mass to launch into space than batteries, capacitors, coils,.... Or do you also think rockets can't work in space because they have no atmosphere to push against? :D

Or is your consideration not lack of atmosphere, but that without gravity to hold the shooter in one place...? If so, there are various 'recoil-less' firearm designs. Also without batteries, capacitors, coils,...

Current highest tech of Super Capacitors might help?
 
Spektator said:
Could one hunt grauss with a gauss?
Or shoot at quail with a rail?
Would a gauss dismember a mauss?
A mass accelerator kill a bull gator?
If one has a range in one's hauss,
Would one dare fire off a gauss?
I don't know, but I'll ask my spauss.
She says no.
Click to expand...
With shot rounds it might be useful as a vermin killer.
 
casebro said:
Uh, whut? "In low g / vacuum you want a weapon that delivers KE in terms of v not m. " So us a high V low M powder burning firearm. A one kilo pistol and a two ounce cartridge sounds like a lot less mass to launch into space than batteries, capacitors, coils,.... Or do you also think rockets can't work in space because they have no atmosphere to push against? :D

Or is your consideration not lack of atmosphere, but that without gravity to hold the shooter in one place...? If so, there are various 'recoil-less' firearm designs. Also without batteries, capacitors, coils,...

Current highest tech of Super Capacitors might help?
Click to expand...

I read that as meaning that you want to minimise the recoil. Not the mass of the gun.
 
jimbob said:
I read that as meaning that you want to minimise the recoil. Not the mass of the gun.
Click to expand...

But the gun has to be lifted into space. Mass costs energy, a revolver will do the same job for less launch energy.
 
casebro said:
But the gun has to be lifted into space. Mass costs energy, a revolver will do the same job for less launch energy.
Click to expand...

By the time one is positing space marines, who is to say they're not built in orbit? And it's possible that the ammunition mass would be less than, say even caseless rounds, although I guess recoilless rifles* might be easier with chemical propellants.

*not artillery but actual infantry rifles
 
Captain_Swoop said:
'Traction Engines' and 'steam lorries' used different boilers and valve gear arrangements, plus they were a lot bigger.
Steam cars were a lot more fragile and their boilers and drive a lot less developed.
Click to expand...

There was a steam powered Ford falcon, driven from Sydney to Perth in Australia in 1967 (or 1969 perhaps) to prove the effectiveness of the technology.

The engine was very small (IIRC) compared to the size of the regular motor.

I believe that steam cars didn't stick around was because it takes time to generate power from a cold start. You couldn't just jump in and drive off in the morning.

Edited to add, was probably this guy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Pritchard_(engineer)
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Where are you getting that?
Click to expand...
Like the captain said, it's in the video. The range safety procedure has the unusual step of asking everyone present if they have a pacemaker and making sure the guy who does keeps a good distance from the gun while it's used.
 
novaphile said:
There was a steam powered Ford falcon, driven from Sydney to Perth in Australia in 1967 (or 1969 perhaps) to prove the effectiveness of the technology.

The engine was very small (IIRC) compared to the size of the regular motor.

I believe that steam cars didn't stick around was because it takes time to generate power from a cold start. You couldn't just jump in and drive off in the morning.

Edited to add, was probably this guy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Pritchard_(engineer)
Click to expand...

I am sure there was a 'special' made reliable enough for one long run with expert technicians on hand to keep it running.

There are a lot more problems with steam power than just the time taken to raise pressure. Water tube boilers can be up to pressure in a very short time. Small boilers that can be made light enough for a car and for capable of delivering the pressure of steam needed for sustained periods are by their nature fragile.
There is a reason that water tube boilers were a failure when they were applied to railway locomotives but worked well in ships and stationary power plants.

Small, lightweight steam plant applied to vehicles will always be fragile.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom