New Rifle Tech Offers Variable Muzzle Speed 443
Ponca City, We love you writes "A gun that fires variable-speed bullets that can be set to kill, wound, or just inflict a bruise is being built by a Lund and Company Invention, a toy design studio that makes toy rockets powered by burning hydrogen obtained by electrolyzing water. The company is being funded by the US Army to adapt the technology to fire bullets instead. The new weapon, called the Variable Velocity Weapon System or VWS, lets the soldier use the same rifle for crowd control and combat, by altering the muzzle velocity. It could be loaded with 'rubber bullets' designed only to deliver blunt impacts on a person, full-speed lethal rounds, or projectiles somewhere between the two. Bruce Lund, the company's CEO, says the gun works by mixing a liquid or gaseous fuel with air in a combustion chamber behind the bullet. This determines the explosive capability of the propellant and consequently the velocity of the bullet. 'Projectile velocity varies from non-lethal at 10 meters, to lethal at 100 meters or more, as desired,' says Lund. The existing VWS design is a .50 caliber (12.7 mm) rifle weapon, but Lund says the technology can be scaled to any size, 'handgun to Howitzer.'"
Interesting... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Set the howitzer to stun! (Score:4, Interesting)
I read about just that, a few years ago in a Dutch Navy publication. It was an article on the lack of big guns capable of coastal barrages on modern ships, and options to put them back on now that that type of warfare might become useful again. The idea is to have one (or a few) guns fire a few rounds in succession along different trajectories, so that they all arrive on target at the same time, creating a nice firestorm. One of the options discussed was a gun using technology similar to this rifle.
Re:Overuse again... (Score:2, Interesting)
all police get to experience the taser and pepper spray before they are issued the gear, so they know it hurts like a motherfucker. i can't find the specifics of the case you are talking about, but i'm assuming since you didn't state she died, that she didn't. until you post a link to a news article i'm going to point out even old grannies can wield a knife.
i will say one thing though. private security shouldn't be issued tasers. all the cases i can find where it was really misused has been private security guards. these guys don't have any business with them since they are only meant to be eye and ears.
Woman killed by "non-lethal" plastic bullet (Score:5, Interesting)
Plastic bullet hits woman in eye, she dies:
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2004/10/22/postgame_police_projectile_kills_an_emerson_student/ [boston.com]
Set this variable speed bullet to "slow" and I bet it more than stings if it hits you in the eye.
Re:This worries you? (Score:5, Interesting)
there was (may still be) a lot more information about this online, especially as a bunch of civilians rather joyfully volunteered to subject themselves to it at a "non lethal weapon fair." of course the device was only set to its lowest setting and it was a prototype. the people got a nice sunburn and i believe they all worse eye cover and stood facing a certain "safe" angle.
this device doesn't worry me, it keeps me awake at night. imagine being disabled and in a crowd somewhere when a riot breaks out and this device is used. it is scary enough being in a crowd when a riot breaks out...you factor in the people being fried and "compelled" to run by that sensation to their skin/eyes and i consider that inhumane on many levels. i've been on crutches and in a wheelchair for a bad injury. in a crowd, here in the US i almost got knocked down and there wasn't a riot or anyone frying my skin. falling down in a mosh pit at a concert and getting trampled is pretty scary...i'll pass on this "non-lethal" device and just take a real damn bullet to the head any day. i even signed a piece of paper saying i would so i have to shut up and do the i can neither confirm nor deny now.
Re:Oh, good. (Score:4, Interesting)
You still don't point them at someone who is complying with the law and you only use them after other tactics have proven in-effective and there is a significant risk of injury to the officer or others.
Oh, of course not. What shit -- anyone "compliant" who doesn't meet a cop's standard of humanity will be met with taunting or other abuse designed to escalate the situation to one where the cop can call "resisting", then all bets are off. They can afford to pick a fight with anyone at any time and come out "clean".
And in California, our idiot voters a few years back voted in a law that allows taking your DNA as part of "processing" if you're arrested for anything (yes, the bastards think we're anything more than meat or vegetables), this without even being indicted or convicted.
Of course, if you're eventually not convicted of anything, you can "apply" to have your sample destroyed. Note -- you can "apply", not "fucking force the shits to verifiably destroy". What are the odds they'll really do so. Of course, in the meantime, they'll have used it to see if they can connect you to anything else, even the gumball you might have stolen fifty years ago.
Re:Rule #1 of Marksmanship (Score:3, Interesting)
It's PR spin. I really think they're hoping to get a contract to develop this technology for tank and naval guns, but are finding it a hard sell since the navy has a hard-on for rail guns for their future ships.
Re:Why exactly would I want to fire a 155mm? (Score:3, Interesting)
Still Have Them... (Score:3, Interesting)
It's called a "shotgun" and shells are available from blank to bean-bags, to birdshot, to buckshot, to slug, or even to HE Grenade for military users.
This looks like a solution in desperate need of a problem.
Re:Interesting... (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, that, and the fact that unless you're on TV, it's impossible to hit a flying target with a single bullet. You need the multiple projectiles that a shotgun provides.
Hmm you must not know much about shooting. Ad Topperwein shot quite a few without missing. I think that the problem today is that no one practices much..... "During these ten days' shooting, I shot a total of 72,500 targets. I missed four out of the first 50,000 and nine out of the total of 72,500." qutoe from Ad Topperwein these were 2.15 inch blocks hand thrown into the air and shot with a 22 rifle. link http://www.traphof.org/topperwein-bio.htm [traphof.org]
Re:Phazers set to stun... (Score:4, Interesting)
The phrase has roots in Military Weapons Handling, where it's standard phraseology. We shoot to kill the enemy, not each other. In training environments, there is no enemy, so we take all precautions not to shoot each other.
Outside the military realm, it's just another phrase the civvies borrowed from us, but still carrying the same warning. The safest weapon is the one that is not pointed at anyone.
Re:Interesting... (Score:3, Interesting)
Part of the challenge of sporting clays is knowing which method of leading you should use. Reducing the muzzle velocities would, on the two courses I've practiced on, give you one realistic option for leading. it would also be impossible to make shots on clays running away from you. Shots that track directly across would be even harder considering how far they have to be lead, and the fact that you fire almost the moment you see the shell entering your field of vision.
That would be rather hard to judge, considering that clays will break when dropped onto dirt. its already hard to tell the difference between a miss and a graze in the first place.
Re:Oh, good. (Score:5, Interesting)
It's even reflected in operation names. Used to be operation names were designed to mislead (or not lead, at least) the enemy should the enemy become aware of them - Operation Market Garden, Operation Overlord. The point was that the operation name was chosen with its impact on the target of that operation in mind.
Now we have names like "Operation Enduring Freedom."
Just who is the target of that name? Just who is it intended to mislead?
Actually, the names are chosen by PR jackasses to "sell" the operation to the american public (and, to a lesser degree, encourage the participating servicemembers to be more enthusiastic about the op). I was with the 7th Light Infantry Division in December 1989. Most of us were sitting around planning for xmas leave, when we were put on alert. We packed our gear, drew weapons, ammo, bayonets, and E-tools*, and sat around in the assembly area waiting for something to happen. After 36 hours or so of being "ready" , we were trucked over to the air force (to wait AGAIN), and flown in to Panama to back up the initial assault force for what we had been told was operation BLUE SPOON. But a funny thing happened on the way to the air force base--- it had suddenly become operation JUST CAUSE. I can tell you that we, the grunts with the rifles, had a serious case of the eye-rolls when we heard about that. Fucking stupid-ass political hack generals.
* the infantry was sometimes a rough place, even in the all-volunteer 80's. Bayonets had been taken away from the infantry after a few incidents of them killing one another in drunken altercations. Infantrymen, being a strange combination of thickheaded and resourceful, switched to fighting each other with E-tools (entrenching tool = folding army shovel, with a serrated edge). This prompted them to confiscate the E-tools and lock them up with the bayonets and rifles. I'm not sure if all this helped, as guys just resorted to whatever deadly personal items they had handy, but at least it introduced some variety to the infantry murder rolls.
Re:snipers (Score:3, Interesting)
That's not really an advantage. What you don't want them to hear is the muzzle blast. This gives away the sniper's location. The muzzle noise can be minimized with a silencer, for either super or subsonic rounds.
The supersonic 'crack' is produced by the bullet shock wave as it passes by. Although it reveals the passage of a round, it doesn't emanate from the direction of the sniper. So it doesn't give away position. Eliminating the supersonic 'crack' sound might help if the first couple of rounds miss. But I'd suspect something was up if my TV set exploded, and then the beer on the table next to me, whether I heard a shot or not. I'd still duck.
Re:Oh, good. (Score:4, Interesting)
A weapon like this relies on *mechanical* means to vary the amount of force. Add the user's responsibility to check which setting it is *supposed* to be on and you have a recipe for disaster.
Even beyond that. If you fire a bullet on "stun" speed and hit someone in the breast bone the guy will be uncomfortable. If you fire the same bullet at the same guy and hit him in the eye, chances are the bullet will go all the way to the other side of his skull. Can the LEO guarantee the aim under pressure, when everyone is running like crazy and shots are fired? If not then he becomes a deliberate killer.
Re:Oh, good. (Score:2, Interesting)
Add to it now they have video recorders on these tasers the second they are pulled from the holster, I would love to have that video as evidence as long as the officer keeps it pointed at the suspect to record it.
Side story on 4th of July had a buddy who got a little rowdy at a bar and they removed him from the bar, but apparently he resisted and the lady officer used the cattle type taser on him. He said it wasn't that bad and went limp but was pissed, but it will easily get written off apparently because it was innapropriate. I would post the video we recorded with the cellphone but it is sloppy and the comments are from a bunch of drunks so it is gibberish. Whether he deserved it is a little hard to say but the other option might have been mace or a hard throw down to the ground which always leaves a nice scar the next day on the face. Tasers aren't nice but drunks are even more beligerant.
There are more and more videos of these 'taser recorded incidents out there', it is interesting to analyze them and see how officers react. Officers I have talked to say that criminals are a lot more responsive now during arrest if you tell them they will be tazered.
I have high hope for hostage situations as now they can fire a taser sniper round or something to take out a suspect and save hostages. Incident I recall a disturbed fater holding his little girl hostage with a gun to her head out here in Los Angeles, he started opening fire on a SWAT team and used the little girl as a human shield. She died unfortunately and the situation could have been handled better, but since it was in a small industrial areas they could have shot the guy with a taser.
Incident just yesterday a Inglewood,California officer was involved in a lethal shooting of a postal employee who ansewered his door with a gun, unfortunately a week earlier the same officer had leathelly shot an unarmed guy also. Investigation going on right now why the officer was still on duty, it just goes on and on.
Re:Oh, good. (Score:3, Interesting)
Excellent point. I was also thinking about the forensic aspect of this as well. How could you prove that such a weapon was set to X level when the round was fired?
Oh, spare me the blanket generalizations (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh, spare me the blanket generalizations.
"Same group"? What same group? Slashdot is a mass of unrelated people with opinions ranging from "pirates should walk the plank" to presenting sharing other people's property as some great fight for freedom. I'm in the former camp, for example. In regards to guns, again, you have the full spectrum, from people who are rabidly against guns, to people whose gun is their penis size symbol, whith some more sane shades in between. When it comes to Taser, you have again a whole range from people who think they're the greatest thing ever, to people who think they're a sign of the apocalypse. Again, with a lot of shades in between, it's not a dichotomy.
There is no "Slashdot crowd".
Besides, here's a fun, if more advanced concept: people can also
1. have wildly different opinions on different issues. Or
2. judge them differently, by how they fit a bigger concept.
E.g., if you judge both by how the powerful guys (government, corporations, etc) use them to bully the small guys, you have entirely different worries about the two issues. I haven't yet heard of anyone using a P2P program to torture, but the Taser for example has occasionally been used for torture or intimidation. Honestly, I can't imagine an oppressive regime's police going to a demonstration and shouting "disperse or we whip out the laptops with BitTorrent!" So from the point of view of, basically, how it affects your liberties, the concerns about the two are wildly different.
Seems like a complicated solution... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Oh, good. (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh, of course not. What shit -- anyone "compliant" who doesn't meet a cop's standard of humanity will be met with taunting or other abuse designed to escalate the situation to one where the cop can call "resisting", then all bets are off. They can afford to pick a fight with anyone at any time and come out "clean".
You don't know what you're fucking talking about, and I find you offensive. Maybe this happened to you, or somebody you know, and it's gotten you irked. But I guarantee that I know more cops than you do, and *never* -- not once -- has this happened in my personal experience as an ex-police officer.
I'm not suggesting that it doesn't happen in the whole wide world, but using words like "anyone" and stating definitively that the defacto method for police of dealing with people is to trick them into resisting arrest, is ignorant and frankly tin-foilish.
As a rule (and I mean that -- rule), you use the least force necessary. If they are being arrested, you want to get them into the van/car and off to the station quickly and cleanly, and with the least paperwork. Resisting arrest entails additional paperwork, and if there's one thing cops hate, it's that.
So shut your stupid fear-inciting mouth, and start commenting on "facts" that you actually know something about.
Re:Oh, good. (Score:3, Interesting)
Then as someone who was unjustifiable beaten by the cops in their own home I can safely say you hang out with scum who should never have been given authority and the right to hurt another person on a wim and their illustrious word that the perp deserved it.
If you don't like it well tough put your head back in the sand and keep hanging out with the vermin, but if you lie with dogs.... well you know the rest I'm sure.
DP
Re:Oh, good. (Score:3, Interesting)