Gauss rifle mechanics
- Thread starter Iggy320
- Start date
Well - I don't know who or what Gauss is (to lazy to look up if it is an actual word 
)
But I do - at some point in time - think that the Gauss mechanics should (could) be doable in the real world.
Afterall we are seeing magnetic trains, that can reach tremendous speeds, and I would imagine that the principle would be somewhat similar.
Electromagnatisme used to speed up/push a projectile untill it reaches a speed with which it can "shoot out" towards a target.
Although - My "main concern" would be how long the barrel should be to get the projectile up into an effective speed, which makes me doubts its effectiveness as a weapon.
(But then again - I seem to have forgotten a large amount of knowlegde about (electro)magnatisme I learned in school many years ago).
)But I do - at some point in time - think that the Gauss mechanics should (could) be doable in the real world.
Afterall we are seeing magnetic trains, that can reach tremendous speeds, and I would imagine that the principle would be somewhat similar.
Electromagnatisme used to speed up/push a projectile untill it reaches a speed with which it can "shoot out" towards a target.
Although - My "main concern" would be how long the barrel should be to get the projectile up into an effective speed, which makes me doubts its effectiveness as a weapon.
(But then again - I seem to have forgotten a large amount of knowlegde about (electro)magnatisme I learned in school many years ago).
I believe it's named after this guy, he was a mathematician who did some work in magnetics.
I haven't tried it, but this page tells you how to make a toy "Gauss rifle" : http://www.scitoys.com/scitoys/scitoys/magnets/gauss.html
It gets the general idea of how a Gauss rifle would work across.
I haven't tried it, but this page tells you how to make a toy "Gauss rifle" : http://www.scitoys.com/scitoys/scitoys/magnets/gauss.html
It gets the general idea of how a Gauss rifle would work across.
How's about a more potent railgun?
http://www.users.qwest.net/~jhove1/robots/coilgunhowto.html
Click the "photos on previous page" for photos and links for even MORE railguns. I remember seeing on the links page, from a link I think is no longer active, that someone made a multi-stage gauss rifle that looked startlingly like the one from Fallout 2. The image is rather accurate -right down to the seperate coils down the barrel.
http://www.users.qwest.net/~jhove1/robots/coilgunhowto.html
Click the "photos on previous page" for photos and links for even MORE railguns. I remember seeing on the links page, from a link I think is no longer active, that someone made a multi-stage gauss rifle that looked startlingly like the one from Fallout 2. The image is rather accurate -right down to the seperate coils down the barrel.
Which reminds me, a couple of geeks put together two working railguns. Quite impressive. I lost the URL, but they managed to put a hole through a soda can with it.
A railgun works pretty much the same way as a gauss gun.
The projectile and barrel get charged magnetically, as far as I remember. The friction is low, the acceleration is high. The point is to pierce the target -- I don't think the gun would have a lot of stopping power (at least not against unarmored targets).
A railgun works pretty much the same way as a gauss gun.
The projectile and barrel get charged magnetically, as far as I remember. The friction is low, the acceleration is high. The point is to pierce the target -- I don't think the gun would have a lot of stopping power (at least not against unarmored targets).
Stopping power comes from how big the projectile is. Wouldn't have much stopping power but if you could get it going fast enough it would work very well. My father was in the U.S. Air Force durring the cold war, and in Basic Training they learned the M-16 rifle like all U.S. soldiers. The M-16 uses a .223 type bullet, a very small bullet with a whole lot of powder. Of course there were some people who didn't believe that this little bullet could do a lot of damage, so they had a demonstration. The demonstrator set up several 55-gallon (about 209-litres) drums full of water. He then produced a .30 calibre magnum rifle, and a .44 calibre magnum rifle, and an M-16. Both the magnum rifles shot the bullet straight through the drum, making neat holes front and back, with little streams of water pouring out. He then asked the most skeptical neophyte soldier to come up and shoot a drum with the M-16. The soldier shot the drum with the little bullet, and the bullet moved so fast that the drum *exploded*. That's called hydrostatic shock, and it happens because the little bullet goes so fast that it makes a shock wave through the material. M-16 bullets have less range than an AK-47, and they move faster. The M-16 is harder to use than the Kalashnikov, but more effective, except that the bigger, slower rounds in the AK-47 have more stopping power (Due to more momentum).
I can vouch for this.... i went through the same demonstration in Basic training (almost 2 and a half years ago).
Also saw the effect of a 5.56 NATO round (M16 bullet) ona human... It's designed to shoot fast and straight, but when it hits somthing it is unstable, thus giving it a unique ability to "bounce around" in a person or any body.. the bullet "tumbles" and it is not unknown for a bullet to enter through the chest and exit through the neck, shoulder, or legs... Pretty cool actually... though I'd rather have more range and stopping power.
Also saw the effect of a 5.56 NATO round (M16 bullet) ona human... It's designed to shoot fast and straight, but when it hits somthing it is unstable, thus giving it a unique ability to "bounce around" in a person or any body.. the bullet "tumbles" and it is not unknown for a bullet to enter through the chest and exit through the neck, shoulder, or legs... Pretty cool actually... though I'd rather have more range and stopping power.
Hydrostatic shock isn't really that effective. The 5.56mm round is designed to tumble threw soft tissue and cause massive trauma damage to many organs(this can be acomplished with a .22 round which will fragment on impact and tumble threw the body, .223 is a .22 on steroids in this concern).
This is why "green tip" ammo, which is a AP style round is good at piercing body armor and anything behind it but lacks stopping power, many examples of this can be found in the mogadishu incident from the Delta unit there and the rangers when the Greentip ammo would penetrate straight threw a enemy instead of tumbling. Love people who claim that .50 caliber rounds can kill someone by shooting their hand/other extremity due to hydrostatic shock and the bodys water content.
*edit* the M16 isn't harder to use than the ak-47. There is a reason it was original referred to as the Mattel rifle because of the weight and plastic parts it was made of, this along with the ammo meant a 12 year old could fire it if they where trained without too much trouble.Whereas the Ak-47 weighs quite a bit and the larger rounds means more recoil
Of course the original .223 round had so much powder that it would quickly clog the original m16 series rifles partly due to their lack of chromed parts such as the receiver. They toned down the powder content during the vietnam war which resulted in less stoppages but increased incidents of the rounds being deflected by grass blades an such as well as decreased range.
This is why "green tip" ammo, which is a AP style round is good at piercing body armor and anything behind it but lacks stopping power, many examples of this can be found in the mogadishu incident from the Delta unit there and the rangers when the Greentip ammo would penetrate straight threw a enemy instead of tumbling. Love people who claim that .50 caliber rounds can kill someone by shooting their hand/other extremity due to hydrostatic shock and the bodys water content.
*edit* the M16 isn't harder to use than the ak-47. There is a reason it was original referred to as the Mattel rifle because of the weight and plastic parts it was made of, this along with the ammo meant a 12 year old could fire it if they where trained without too much trouble.Whereas the Ak-47 weighs quite a bit and the larger rounds means more recoil
Of course the original .223 round had so much powder that it would quickly clog the original m16 series rifles partly due to their lack of chromed parts such as the receiver. They toned down the powder content during the vietnam war which resulted in less stoppages but increased incidents of the rounds being deflected by grass blades an such as well as decreased range.
Miles, The reason that the barrels and a few other parts in the original M-16 were chromed was because of the low grade powder, it tended to corrode the barrels and the reciever quickly, thus leading to more jams and less accuracy... The newer 5.56 Nato ammo used uses a less corrosive pyrodex powder, is cheaper, more powerful and accurate than the original ammo...
trust me, I've fired both, The surplus 'Nam era ammo all thorugh basic and the new ammo ever since.
The new ammo is far better...
Easier to clean the rifle after the range.
trust me, I've fired both, The surplus 'Nam era ammo all thorugh basic and the new ammo ever since.
The new ammo is far better...
Easier to clean the rifle after the range.
I know thats what I said, the original series Wasnt chromed due to "budget constraints" that resulted in alot of jams and then they reduced the powder and chromed the parts, this fixed things. The newer ammo along with the a2 version of the rifle made it more accurate due to more rifling in the barrel and better ammunition powder
Miles said:
I remember back in my army days (volunteer conscript)- we were trained in and used a H&K G3A3 (I think that is the mark) assault rifle using 7.62 mm ammo. The recoil really had a kick to it. Then the army was in the process of introducing a version of the M-16 using the 5.56mm ammo and the recoil was so much lower. (We were the last round of conscript that used the H&K rifle)
The M-16 version was so much easier to handle, especially on full automatic fire compared to the H&K.
Although I still loved the H&K despite the weight and recoil. Feels good to know when you fire a weapon.
quietfanatic
Ancient One
Elissar said:
I thought that the 'tumbling' effect would banned by Nato, as being 'inhumane' as the desired effect of weaponry is to incapacitate and not kill (yes I'm serious, that's what an army official said).
The effect you are describing sounds more similar to that utilized by the 'evil' Russians in the AK-74.
Twentieth Century Small Arms said:
...Although the hollow point and extreme nature may be the main difference.
Note to self: Do not listen to media propagandists concerning military matters.
Xandax, what exactly is a 'volunteer conscript?' Does it mean that you volunteered for the armed services when you would have been conscripted anyway?
May I ask when/where you were 'educated' in this manner?
May I ask when/where you were 'educated' in this manner?
Kotario said:
In Denmark we have a sort of conscription. Although because we haven't got a large armed forces, not every person in the right age has to serve in the military.
This means that we have a draft where we draw a number and if the number is below some limit you have to serve or if above the limit, you don't have to. (Although "we" are lenient in Denmark, so people can opt to refuse to serve their period, then they get sent out doing some "community service" instead)
I volunteered to serve my conscription, even though I didn't have to (I pulled a high number, some 10.000 higher then the limit).
Then I asked to join the motorized infantry and was thus trained in infantry/squad combat and specialized in anti-tank combat.
At that time serving time was 10 months and I served back in 95-96.
(I didn't go for officer or similar, although the army wanted to recruit me 'cause I had studied russian in highschool.)
Bradylama
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
I thought the M16 wasn't chromed because the "Wiz Kids" in Washington figured that since the designer of the AR15 didn't design it with chrome parts that chrome parts weren't needed.
Of course, these were the same guys that advocated smaller ammo because every magazine is supposed to kill so many people per bullet. They were fighting the war on numbers.
Of course, these were the same guys that advocated smaller ammo because every magazine is supposed to kill so many people per bullet. They were fighting the war on numbers.
bob_the_rambler
Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?
it was the wiz kids who decided not to chrome the breech of the m16, not to mention the type of powder used at first, gummed easily further hampering the m16.