Apollo-Soyuz on January 14, 2011, 12:00:05 pm

In other words, it is harder to get 4.4 kilos moving than it is to get 2.2 kilos moving, irrespective of weight. In my mind, increasing a weapons mass on Ceres necessarily makes it more difficult to aim and fire accurately.
...
So once again, what is the advantage of increasing the mass a weapon on Ceres other than less recoil?

Paragraph 1: OK, good we both understand this.

Paragraph 2: No advantage, except recoil. I was only trying to demonstrate that more weight doesn't make it useless. I wasn't trying to claim that more weight != more effort.

I would expect individual shooters, (at least the ones that practice), would tune and adjust and tweek and try different things until they thought they had something that worked for them.

I expect a healthy aftermarket of do-dads, that will, for a price, claim to do a better job than what was supplied by the manufacture.  Just like we have here and now.

I don't expect the 9mm vs 45ACP argument to go away anytime soon either.

spudit on January 14, 2011, 12:05:12 pm
Oh yes a shaped charge, not a tank scale one though. Picture a pistol case hitting open end on with a similar charge, not so different from the retro rocket mentioned earlier. If people are water ballons let's boil some.

ADDED, remember the laser burn in The Probability Broach? Let's consider all sorts of delivered energy rather than just kenetic
« Last Edit: January 14, 2011, 12:16:35 pm by spudit »
Vote Early and Vote Often
for EFT
have you voted today?

spudit on January 14, 2011, 12:30:13 pm
As I recall the original scrapnel round, as invented by the officer of the same name, was something like that shot shell on a stick. The round exploded near the target like grapeshot without the spread. Let's use modern thought to make a short lived light barrel to accelerate the pellets or slug at impact rather than at launch, use it's momentum to tamp it.

Bummer if the casing comes back at you though. Best make it consumable or light weight like a sabot. Maybe have it bannana peel  for maximum air drag when it fails a microsecond after it fires.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2011, 12:33:52 pm by spudit »
Vote Early and Vote Often
for EFT
have you voted today?

Plane on January 14, 2011, 02:57:17 pm
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/hide-us-army-testing-smart-weapons-afghanistan/story?id=12171365
Quote
Crouching behind his own cover, a U.S. soldier armed with the XM-25 can point his weapon at the wall behind which the enemy is hiding to get the precise distance. The rounds, which come four to a magazine plus one in the chamber, can then be programmed to travel just a short distance behind that to explode precisely where the insurgent is believed to be hiding.

With the scope aimed at the top of the wall, the round will fire and explode before impact, at the precise location programmed by the soldier, raining a hail of explosives and fragments on to the enemy.

It all takes mere seconds -- five to program and fire, two for travel.

The rounds also take into account air pressure and temperature to accurately hit their marks.

"Our soldiers can stay behind cover and shoot this weapon at the enemy who's behind cover and we can take him out," Lehner said. "But they can't take us out because we're behind cover and they don't have this weapon."


These are slow , large ,spin stabalised projectiles with computer on board.
They count their revolutions as they fly to gague distance traveled , they are programmed befopre launch by the launcher which includes a laser rangefinder.
The Army has been working on this project for years and only recently issued a few for use on a trial basis, in a century I can imagine it being improved a lot and perhaps even made in a lot smaller version.

Gunfights are going to be very diffrent when getting behind the rocks doesn't help.

SandySandfort on January 14, 2011, 03:45:19 pm
I don't expect the 9mm vs 45ACP argument to go away anytime soon either.

Yeah, but what about Mac v. Windows v. Linux?   ;D

ZeissIkon on January 14, 2011, 06:57:06 pm
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/hide-us-army-testing-smart-weapons-afghanistan/story?id=12171365

They count their revolutions as they fly to gague distance traveled , they are programmed befopre launch by the launcher which includes a laser rangefinder.
The Army has been working on this project for years and only recently issued a few for use on a trial basis, in a century I can imagine it being improved a lot and perhaps even made in a lot smaller version.

This is almost exactly what I described for a self-destructing range limited projectile, and I can easily see this being practical in 12 ga., if not smaller slugs within twenty years -- the computer/sensor package can probably already be built on a single chip (including accelerometers to detect firing and spin and a supercapacitor to provide power for the unit) and only a gram or so of explosive would be needed -- remember, it's a miss limiter, not an explosive bullet (use of explosive bullets in the EFT Belt would likely result in penalties for unnecessary roughness, especially against targets softer than, say, a tug/freighter like Little Toot).

BTW, Clarissa McDougal's EM-boosted sliver gun (as well as Olongo Featherstone-Haugh's much larger version) is, as of last week, still impossible to build -- we can't electromagnetically accelerate a projectile that small at the necessary rate, nor can we make an energy source concentrated enough to do the job in a person-portable weapon.  You can buy a laser I'd call a weapon -- there are 200+ mW output lasers in red, green, and blue/UV that, with a collimated beam, will burn black plastic almost instantly, and could permanently blind an eye as quickly, and IR lasers in excess of 1 W output, all of which can run off a small battery (ranging from 3 to 9 volts, roughly, and cells as small as the 4A size found inside a 9V transistor battery can or even the larger size of button cells) -- but nothing that will instantly burn a hole in a human (though you might well be able to produce an instant, highly localized sunburn that could theoretically mark the target in a way that won't wash off, but will heal in a week or so).  A 20 W output carbon dioxide laser and its power supply are roughly person-portable (package weight could be as little as fifteen pounds or so), but even that will only burn a hair-fine hole at a tight focus, and has the additional drawback of attenuating very rapidly in air (a CO2 laser's wavelength is strongly absorbed by nitrogen, oxygen, and water vapor).  What's needed for a "real" laser weapon, for use in a manner similar to a handgun, is the ability to fire a pulse in the kilojoule power range, which is pretty much going to point to neodymium glass or neodymium YAG (again, far IR output) with a non-linear crystal like those in green laser pointers to convert the output to visible (it'd be orange, not green, because Nd has a much longer wavelength than CO2).

spudit on January 14, 2011, 08:16:32 pm
I saw something about a maser, a microwave laser, being developed for crowd control; it heated the skin surface and appeared to burn like hell. Naturally, it was a government project, Lord they do fear the masses.

If smart bullets get developed and used and miss, watch the legal fur fly. Was it aimed wrong or made wrong

Chemistry we have now; it can pack and release a lot of energy in a small space and do the job. Picture a projectile with 2 similar powder charges. One goes off in the chamber, the other, maybe that tiny solid fuel rocket again, on impact. It wouldn't burn through walls, it needn't be anymore powerfull or unpleasant than jamming a burning highway flare into someone at 600 MPH.   No death beams required.
Vote Early and Vote Often
for EFT
have you voted today?

spudit on January 14, 2011, 08:25:19 pm
Then there's this old school classic weapon that is independent of gravity.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2009/12/15/Burglar-shot-by-man-with-bow-and-arrow/UPI-34861260920867/

Nonlethal this time,  it hit him in the butt.
Vote Early and Vote Often
for EFT
have you voted today?

terry_freeman on January 15, 2011, 11:22:56 am
I wouldn't call a bow and arrow "independent of gravity" - one must compensate for the drop due to gravity - but in low-grav situations, the trajectory would be much more flat than on earth.

spudit on January 15, 2011, 11:32:36 pm
Agreed Terry, not flat but flatter.

It was meant as humorous. Recall something Uncle Bob said in Starship Troopers, something about a man getting knifed or hit on the head while aiming an H weapon, pardon the paraphrasing, basically what works works. Me,  I'm  tickled by the fact that the loser got arrowed in the ass by some vigilante neighbor while robbing a house, got a year in jail  too.

This thread brought out some some mean stuff from me, cramming a highway flare into someones guts and such. The question posed though was what makes sense as a practical hand weapon in 100 years on Ceres. Every weapon is vicious and horrible, from a gladilus up the pancreas to a big impersonal nuke. Whatever works. Whatever and then some.

Were I In Reggie's congregation, it would be a modest knife for rope cutting and whatever minor threat comes up and a light recoil hard hitting, that is much energy released on impact not much at launch, hand weapon not unlike the plastic flare gun I mentioned earlier.

Forget about what works in Seattle today, what would work best there, in that gravity and air pressure with the given presumed technology, practically Star Trek, and no stupid arbitrary government rules.

I have a recalcitrant wood stove here that is hard to light. I may yet mix gasoline with shred ed soap as a cold stove encourager. Whatever works, works and I'm pretty sure a wee dab of homemade napalm will start a wood stove.

As above.

Edited to fix typos
« Last Edit: January 16, 2011, 03:54:15 pm by spudit »
Vote Early and Vote Often
for EFT
have you voted today?

J Thomas on January 16, 2011, 09:45:18 am

This thread brought out some some mean stuff from me, cramming a highway flare into someone's guts and such. The question posed though was what makes sense as a practical hand weapon in 100 years on Ceres. Every weapon is vicious and horrible, from a gladious up the pancreas to a big impersonal nuke. Whatever works. Whatever and then some.

The criteria still are not clear. I think it's important to get something that stops the other guy quick. Like, it might easily turn out that by that time individuals can get germs that are immune to all but one obscure antibiotic, that kill somebody in two days. Put some on a tiny dart and hit them with a blowgun, they might not notice that they're dead. It would only be an assassin's weapon, because if you use it in a dispute in a bar the other guy can still kill you, and it doesn't help you much that he'll be dead in two days as well. Is there any point in coating your flechettes with it? A good shot will kill him. A bad shot that barely hits and either you get another chance or you're dead too.

Suppose you have a high-power squirtgun that hits somebody with a DMSO/tranquilizer mixture. Under ideal conditions you can harmlessly knock them out and they can't hit you after you hit them. But if they dress to fight then you probably have to hit their head or hand, unless you shoot a wide fan of liquid. It takes time for a tranquilizer to act and they might shoot you before your liquid stops them even if you shoot first by a split-second. And with most such things if you get the dosage too high you might kill them anyway. It sounds good in theory but it just doesn't quite work.

Maybe you could do something with a great big electric or magnetic field. Temporarily fry their nerves. That would be fast enough, and it could possibly be effective, in a hundred years we might know how to do that reliably. They wake up with a headache but not much permanent damage. Would that fit the need?

It wouldn't be nearly as good a threat as a Desert Eagle. Some idiot feels like causing trouble, picking on somebody. He picks you. He sees you aren't going to actually shoot to kill, the worst that happens to him is he gets a big shock.

The main point of carrying a gun is to coerce people. "Don't do anything I'd strenuously object to (and that the arbitrator will back me up on), or maybe I'll kill you." A visible gun is a warning, a threat, a way to coerce people. In AnCap society it is only a way to coerce people not to do bad things. ;) ;) But still, a gun which does not look like a lethal threat is not as useful as a gun that looks like it would make somebody die in agony.

Which suggests a choice along the lines you were saying. How about something like a great big paintball launcher. You can shoot big balls full of something like jellied gasoline or white phosporus, that ignite on impact. Somebody with a really cool head might shoot at you after he's hit, but depending on how it spreads his head is likely not to be cool at all. Getting hit with something like that will definitely ruin your day. A great big threat. If somebody standing beside me gets in an argument with a guy carrying that, I'm going to mosey away from the line of fire. This might be better than exploding bullets because it's less likely to result in a great big spray of blood that gets in everybody else's drinks. On the other hand, it will stink.

Plane on January 16, 2011, 11:25:03 am
On ships at sea , fire is a serious threat.

Especially on military vessels there is a llot of effort to minimise collection of flamable stuff , but there is so much stuff that is both flamable and necessacery that fire is still a serious threat.

I wouldn't expect Napalm like weapons to be popular , I wouldn't let someone into my establishment with something that was likely to start a fire.

I believe that hand grenades will also be considered rude.

Ed the Texan is giveing good advice , the wepon needs to be appropriate to the threat and also appropriate to the situation.

Also I like the Desert eagal in large caliber, with reduced loads it becomes easy to controll , with sabot rounds it becomes far range and armor pericing. The large caliber allows a lot of versatility at a minor penalty against fast draw. With the reduced power rounds it might have a faster second shot on target than a less massive gun . How much diffrence does maximiseing fast draw make?


Would a gunslinger wnat a minor caliber with a titanium frame just so he could come on target a small amount sooner? I wouldn't be surprised if flexable armor has been improved a bit in the nex hundred years .

J Thomas on January 16, 2011, 02:12:21 pm

I wouldn't expect Napalm like weapons to be popular , I wouldn't let someone into my establishment with something that was likely to start a fire.

That makes good sense to me.

Quote
Ed the Texan is giveing good advice , the wepon needs to be appropriate to the threat and also appropriate to the situation.

Also I like the Desert eagal in large caliber, with reduced loads it becomes easy to controll , with sabot rounds it becomes far range and armor pericing. The large caliber allows a lot of versatility at a minor penalty against fast draw. With the reduced power rounds it might have a faster second shot on target than a less massive gun . How much diffrence does maximiseing fast draw make?

If it comes to an actual gunfight against one opponent where you both expect trouble but neither wants to draw until the other does, or a duel where they both draw on a signal, then it could make all the difference. I don't right off think of a third situation where it does. If it's three guys who want you dead and they have the drop on you, you're probably dead.

Quote
Would a gunslinger wnat a minor caliber with a titanium frame just so he could come on target a small amount sooner?

I'd expect that to be an individual choice. If most of the trouble is with idiots who want to win a gunfight for trivial reasons, the best thing is to have a gun that intimidates them into not challenging you in the first place.

Quote
I wouldn't be surprised if flexable armor has been improved a bit in the nex hundred years .

If you come into my bar heavily armed and armored, I will look for a polite way to encourage you to leave. Or find a private room for you, and not tell anybody you're there. You aren't necessarily looking for trouble, but if you're expecting trouble I'd rather you find it somewhere else.

SandySandfort on January 16, 2011, 02:23:10 pm
I'd expect that to be an individual choice. If most of the trouble is with idiots who want to win a gunfight for trivial reasons, the best thing is to have a gun that intimidates them into not challenging you in the first place.

How about just ignoring them? You are under no obligation to give fools a forum. (I'm under no obligation, either, but I often do it just for the fun of it.)

If you come into my bar heavily armed and armored, I will look for a polite way to encourage you to leave. Or find a private room for you, and not tell anybody you're there. You aren't necessarily looking for trouble, but if you're expecting trouble I'd rather you find it somewhere else.

If your policy is to make your bar a victim disarmament zone, I'll take my business to someplace safer, such as the Iron Rock. I don't trust barkeeps who don't trust me.

spudit on January 16, 2011, 03:44:50 pm
Napalm in an artificial habitat, good gods, man. The idea of using a dab to start a wood stove scares me; Vaseline burns just as hot and is way safer. Besides the big showy nasty flames, napalm kills by asphyxiation as in no O2 and lots of CO. Picture using a flame thrower in a submarine.   

Nope, ideally it would be the lightest handiest launcher for something large, low recoil and nasty on impact within a small radius.

A gun on the hip of someone who is not a bully is not a threat, it's just there. It is not about coercion but about not being easily coerced.  It's about discouraging a bully not being one.

Vote Early and Vote Often
for EFT
have you voted today?