First commercial Gauss Rifle available.

Andy_Ross

Penultimate Amazing
Andy_Ross
Joined
Jun 2, 2010
Messages
57,354
Forgotten Weapons reviews and shoots the ArcFlash Labs' GR-1 Anvil Portable Gauss Rifle

It's an alpha sort of prototype. They want people to take them away and play so they can gain experience in how they will be used and what people want from them.



Interview with David Wirth of ArcFlash labs talking about how it works.

 
Assuming it's to be something in the firearm category, and not, say, the squirt gun category, what people want from them should be fairly easy to figure out:

Longer range/higher power/greater accuracy than conventional firearms.

Lighter weight than conventional firearms.

Larger magazine than conventional firearms.

Obviously it doesn't have to compete in all three categories with all conventional firearms. But take a conventional sniper rifle, for example. A reconnaissance team will have one of these, that delivers a certain range/power/accuracy for a certain weight and magazine size. For a gauss rifle to replace it, it would need to retain some of those qualities while improving the others. Greater power for the same weight, for example. Maybe not worry about magazine size, since that's not usually a critical feature of a sniper rifle. But maybe do worry about magazine size, since if it's only good for three shots, and the magazine itself (or power pack, or whatever) is itself a bulky heavy item, that's probably not good.

The examples in those videos look about as bulky and heavy as a large assault rifle, so I'd guess people will want it to hit harder and carry more ammo than conventional assault rifles and battle rifles.
 
It seems like the only immediately obvious benefit is silence.

But, this is a very early model.
 
Meadmaker said:
It seems like the only immediately obvious benefit is silence.

But, this is a very early model.
Click to expand...

Probably not worth doing this to death, but if the rounds are high-velocity, the sound of the projectile travelling through the air is a very significant part of the noise.

This is why I used to cull rabbits with a .22 with subsonic rounds and a silencer.
 
HighRiser said:
Low velocity. .50 cal steel bars in three lengths ranging from 1" to 2" long. Approximately the same impact energy as .22LR.
Click to expand...

Easy to reload after the zombie apocalypse I guess (recharge the battery from your solar panels).

No good after the battery pack dies though.

I'm still waiting for my phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range...

(and don't get me started on personal jetpacks and flying cars.)
 
novaphile said:
Probably not worth doing this to death, but if the rounds are high-velocity, the sound of the projectile travelling through the air is a very significant part of the noise.

This is why I used to cull rabbits with a .22 with subsonic rounds and a silencer.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that .22s are favored by mob hitmen on that score.

Other than gauss rifles just being super cool, I'm not sure I see much benefit over say, a rifle?
 
theprestige said:
Assuming it's to be something in the firearm category, and not, say, the squirt gun category, what people want from them should be fairly easy to figure out:

Longer range/higher power/greater accuracy than conventional firearms.

Lighter weight than conventional firearms.

Larger magazine than conventional firearms.

Obviously it doesn't have to compete in all three categories with all conventional firearms. But take a conventional sniper rifle, for example. A reconnaissance team will have one of these, that delivers a certain range/power/accuracy for a certain weight and magazine size. For a gauss rifle to replace it, it would need to retain some of those qualities while improving the others. Greater power for the same weight, for example. Maybe not worry about magazine size, since that's not usually a critical feature of a sniper rifle. But maybe do worry about magazine size, since if it's only good for three shots, and the magazine itself (or power pack, or whatever) is itself a bulky heavy item, that's probably not good.

The examples in those videos look about as bulky and heavy as a large assault rifle, so I'd guess people will want it to hit harder and carry more ammo than conventional assault rifles and battle rifles.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

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.
 
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...

Haven't you even seen Moonraker?
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Haven't you even seen Moonraker?
Click to expand...

I have. Orbital infantry didn't make sense then, and it doesn't make sense now.

But I suppose an OTV with a gauss rifle, maneuvering in LEO to snipe satellites, might have a place in the future of warfare. For sure the next major conflict between space age peers is going to see a pretty sudden and comprehensive attack on orbital comms and recon, by both sides.
 
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?
 
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...

Bah. In "Starship Troopers", it was conclusively proved that you need boots on the ground, even in space. And the training included all sorts of weaponry, even knives.

The book. Not the movie. The movie sucked.
 
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...

It may be that the coils impart a lot more force to the cylyndrical slugs than they would to a ball.
 
Dr.Sid said:
It's pretty meh. There are slingshots more powerful than this.
Click to expand...

As they say in the interview it's very much a 'proof of concept'. If you look closely the plastic parts are all 3d printed.
When they work out how to stabilise the ammunition, either by fins or spinning it will start to get more serious.

It will be interesting to see Ian use it in the 'backup Gun' match. He usually does that with some obscure, weird old pistol.
 
My first thought was that there's a conflict between having an accurate, aerodynamic projectile and the device's ability to launch it, as its ideal launch object seems to be a plain, symmetrical length of steel rod and it doesn't impart any spin. Imagining this technology developed, it looks like its sole advantage will be its quietness. A stealthy short range weapon firing a slow, heavy slug.
 
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...

Small arms could be useful for space colonialism. Sure, large powers will just hydrogen bomb eachother out of existence, but maybe you need some space marines to put down mouthy asteroid miners getting uppity about their contracts. Always gonna be a need for door kickers and strike breakers.
 
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