Jump to content


Photo

Metal Storm

~Desgustingly Frightning~

26 replies to this topic

#1 Jappo

Jappo

    Member

  • Members
  • 149 posts
  • Location:North Vancouver, Canada

Posted 01 March 2004 - 01:49 AM

This gun can, in theory, fire up to a million bullets a minute.


Metal Storm - The Ultimate Killing Machine

I would watch the video if you don't want to read it all.

Edited by Jappo, 01 March 2004 - 01:53 AM.

  • 0
"When life gives you lemons, you squish those lemons into the eyes of your enemies." - Jappo

#2 Jangadance

Jangadance

    Member

  • Members
  • 676 posts

Posted 01 March 2004 - 02:25 AM

Zero Talent, if you could please get to work on emulating this design in your next homemade valve. Thanks.
  • 0
"The 'dance goes on..."

#3 Gamefreak

Gamefreak

    Member

  • Members
  • 362 posts
  • Location:A magical place of wonder

Posted 01 March 2004 - 09:28 AM

Thats awesome. Wow, uh yeah Zero I second that motion.
  • 0
Gamertag : Corpseoftheyear

QUOTE(substance abuse)
No offense but soldat has to be the worst game ever made
Like anyone could even know that, GOSH.

#4 cxwq

cxwq

    Member

  • Founders
  • 3,634 posts

Posted 01 March 2004 - 12:23 PM

I don't see what's so impressive about this. Their website is full of hyperbole about how this will revolutionize everything from pistols to landmines to missile interdiction.

So they put all the bullets in the barrel ahead of time and fire them in sequence instead of using a magazine. You can shoot real fast but you can't reload unless you're carrying a spare pre-loaded barrel.

So they mount a whole bunch of these barrels together as a unit to increase the ROF in a linear fashion. That's not a technological breakthrough, that's just putting a bunch of guns together in a "pod" and firing them in sequence.

This only seems useful for circumstances where you want to deliver as much ordinance as possible at a single target in as little time as possible. Would your RF20 be a superior weapon if it fired all 20 darts in a tenth of a second instead of 3 or 4 seconds?
  • 0
<meta name="cxwq" content="mostly water">

#5 Half Newb Half Nerfer

Half Newb Half Nerfer

    Member

  • Members
  • 737 posts

Posted 01 March 2004 - 01:03 PM

I heard about this a little over a year ago. Its amazing what kind of weapons we have today compared to a club way back in the day.
  • 0

#6 Famine

Famine

    Member

  • Members
  • 545 posts

Posted 01 March 2004 - 02:59 PM

I heard about this a little over a year ago. Its amazing what kind of weapons we have today compared to a club way back in the day.

It's amazing what kind of stupid shit comes out of newb's mouths today compared to way back in the day too.

As for the Metal Storm... meh. ROF isn't everything. You obviously throw the idea of accuracy out the window and as both the retired-soldier dude and CX pointed out, reloading the gun in combat probably wouldn't be feasible. I guess that shit about using it with fire surpressants or something might make sense. But is there really any military target you need to fire thousands of bullets a second at? I mean shit, most of our military is trained to do it in like 3 or 4.
  • 0
~Famine
of Mag-7
East Coast Nerf 2005: Step It Up.
East Coast Nerf 2006: That's more like it.
East Coast Nerf 2007: I'm not driving to Massachusetts again.
East Coast Nerf 2008: Day of Regret.
East Coast Nerf 2009: Quid pro quo, douchebags!

#7 sporkboyofjustice

sporkboyofjustice

    Member

  • Members
  • 280 posts

Posted 01 March 2004 - 03:26 PM

This is plain silly. You would pretty much get one "shot: and then you would have to reload. This uber rapid fire approach requires high accuracy as if you miss your target you will have to reload and give your enemy time to flee.

If you are going after a human target how many bullets would they take to kill? Certainly it canít be more than the 180 that this gun can deliver in 1/25th of a second. Speaking of which carrying around this many rounds would not be practical for a single soldier, it would need to be stationary or vehicle carried.

As for applications on the small scale I seriously hope that the local police never get any of these in hand guns that would carry say 20 rounds (I know thatís generous). If they miss then they would be royally screwed. Whatís worse than that is that they will most likely cause large amounts of damage to their surroundings. I do not know that I would want to trust my firearms to electronics as if they go bad you canít fix them in the field unless you have special training and batteries die. This would also make all of the weapons using this technology a weakness to electromagnetic pulses (EMP).
  • 0

#8 Spectre2689

Spectre2689

    Member

  • Members
  • 432 posts
  • Location:Toronto

Posted 01 March 2004 - 03:26 PM

The thought that there's something out there like that sends a shiver down my spine. Sure, guns are cool, but 1,000,000 bullets per minute? That's completely unnecessary. They have rockets and miniguns for stuff like that. Though the uses for fire-fighting and policing are interesting.

[EDIT] Spork posted this at the same time as me. His last paragraph makes sense, about police officers with the handguns, and causing damage to surrounding areas. Especially the EMP thing. Imagine the entire Coalition army using these things, and the enemy just happens to set off a wide-area EMP. Can you say Screwed?

Edited by Spectre2689, 01 March 2004 - 03:30 PM.

  • 0
Spectre of the CFM

#9 Alexthebeast

Alexthebeast

    Member

  • Members
  • 728 posts

Posted 01 March 2004 - 03:59 PM

I saw a thing on that on the discovery channel a year or so ago. The pistols looked like something out of teminator
  • 0
<Fooz> In a perfect world... spammers would get caught, go to jail, and share a cell with many men who have enlarged their penisses, taken Viagra and are looking for a new relationship.

#10 merlinski

merlinski

    Member

  • Members
  • 403 posts

Posted 01 March 2004 - 04:18 PM

You'd think that on a nerf board people would be more conscious of weapons and their uses...

First of all, this isn't a one shot thing. If you read the article, it has the potential to have several bullets in each barrel, and they don't need to all be fired at once. So you could essentially have the capability to fire 10 barrages at seperate intervals before needing to reload. That's about equivalent to most of the multiple launch rocket systems that they use in attack helicopters today.

Second, this isn't intended to replace infantry weapons. It will influence them, which I'll get to, but the purpose of the 1,000,000 rounds per minute gun would be primarily anti-personal over a large area or against soft targets such as jeeps or helicopters.

Third, the biggest breakthrough isn't the 20 gazillion barrels that this thing has. The biggest breakthrough is the electronic firing ignition, and the capability with this to have multiple shells in a single barrel. The example about a policeman using it didn't involve multiple shots at once, it involved a pistol with one barrel that has all of its bullets in the barrel and can only be fired when an activating agent is present to allow electronic ignition. The army has been talking about electronic firing for years, mostly because of the rate of fire. It could even be applied to a system using a clip.

Finally, the concept of the bullets being placed in the barrels doesn't necessarily eliminate the possibility of quick reloading. Think about a clip. If it's possible to develop a gun where the clip is interchangeable, it'd be just as easy to develop a gun where the barrel is interchangable, mostly because the barrel would only require contact with electrodes for it to fire correctly.
  • 0

#11 Formerly Sane

Formerly Sane

    Member

  • Members
  • 210 posts

Posted 01 March 2004 - 04:29 PM

Someone could make a magazine that used barrels in it instead of bullets. That way an 8"(or close) clip could have like 200 shots in it.
  • 0
NERF: www.CYCLONENERF.netfirms.com
FLASH: www.thinkhappy.netfirms.com
BAND: www.skwalrock.com

#12 cxwq

cxwq

    Member

  • Founders
  • 3,634 posts

Posted 01 March 2004 - 04:41 PM

First of all, this isn't a one shot thing.  If you read the article, it has the potential to have several bullets in each barrel, and they don't need to all be fired at once.  So you could essentially have the capability to fire 10 barrages at seperate intervals before needing to reload.  That's about equivalent to most of the multiple launch rocket systems that they use in attack helicopters today.

Exactly. Used that way it's no different from what we already have. Except it might be more difficult to reload.

Second, this isn't intended to replace infantry weapons. It will influence them, which I'll get to, but the purpose of the 1,000,000 rounds per minute gun would be primarily anti-personal over a large area or against soft targets such as jeeps or helicopters.


OK, a million rounds a minute is over 16,000 rounds per second. Unless you're just spraying and praying, those rounds are going in the same direction. How exactly would this help in anti-personnel situations? As for soft targets, I'd rather hit a chopper with one rocket than a few thousand bullets.

Third, the biggest breakthrough isn't the 20 gazillion barrels that this thing has. The biggest breakthrough is the electronic firing ignition, and the capability with this to have multiple shells in a single barrel. The example about a policeman using it didn't involve multiple shots at once, it involved a pistol with one barrel that has all of its bullets in the barrel and can only be fired when an activating agent is present to allow electronic ignition. The army has been talking about electronic firing for years, mostly because of the rate of fire. It could even be applied to a system using a clip.


If electronic firing is the big story here then I'm impressed that the pentagon is finally catching up to paintball technology. Magnetic and RF safety interlocks are already available for handguns that don't have electronic ignition so that's a non-issue as well.

Finally, the concept of the bullets being placed in the barrels doesn't necessarily eliminate the possibility of quick reloading. Think about a clip. If it's possible to develop a gun where the clip is interchangeable, it'd be just as easy to develop a gun where the barrel is interchangable, mostly because the barrel would only require contact with electrodes for it to fire correctly.


Right, that's discussed in the article. The problem being that instead of a half dozen magazines you're carrying around a half dozen barrels. It's not that it's impossible, it just seems cumbersome and pointless.
  • 0
<meta name="cxwq" content="mostly water">

#13 Jangadance

Jangadance

    Member

  • Members
  • 676 posts

Posted 01 March 2004 - 04:42 PM

So they put all the bullets in the barrel ahead of time and fire them in sequence instead of using a magazine, they mount a whole bunch of these barrels together as a unit to increase the ROF in a linear fashion. That's not a technological breakthrough.

What I see as impressive is that they have efficiently eliminated all of the mechanized firing devices that have been used for decades upon decades. It is about time this technology took a step into the 21st century. Like the guy in the video mentioned, it's not just the immediate applications, but the fact that it's a 'motherhood invention', and it will undoubtably revolutionize modern warfare in the years to come.

Take for instance the issue of eliminating enemy troops in heavy cover. Sure, planes with missiles work just fine, but they are more innacurate. And what happens if one of the warheads doesn't go off? You have something that will pose a danger to civilians afterwards.

I don't understand what the problem with the tube reloading is anyhow. Surely they will streamline this process before it becomes part of the armed forces issued weaponry. Still, it isn't much more inefficient than stacking the bullets on top of one another, in terms of space. With a clip-fed weapon, you still need to carry extra clips, regardless of whether they are tubular or rectangular. I do see the issue of the unwieldy nature of tubes coming into play. Still, how badass would it be to have your ammo tubes in a quiver strapped to your back!? :nugget:

To be honest, I was a bit frightened when I saw the video of the Metal Storm prototype pistol being fired at the 3 plates in front of a human-shaped target. :::EDIT- Merlinski, it was *3* barrels, not just 1::: The 3 bursts of fire shattered the chest plate, groin plate, and face plate. To me, this does seem like overkill. However, imagine for a moment the officer isn't facing a defenseless plate-man, and instead is being attacked by a trained terrorist using an AK-47. Instead of having to carry a cumbersome shotgun to eliminate this target as quickly as possible (a single pistol shot to a non-vital area will only slow him down in this case) he could be issued a single or double barrel Metal Storm pistol that could quickly fire a volley of bullets faster than physically possible if he was using a standard weapon. Imagine being attacked by a weapon with such a devastating ROF, you would be on the ground in seconds. You saw those poor, poor doors in the video.


In any case, at least now we know what those pistols in the movie "Underworld" were... ;)

Posted Image

Edited by Jangadance, 01 March 2004 - 04:50 PM.

  • 0
"The 'dance goes on..."

#14 Formerly Sane

Formerly Sane

    Member

  • Members
  • 210 posts

Posted 01 March 2004 - 04:50 PM

However, imagine for a moment the officer isn't facing a defenseless plate-man, and instead is being attacked by a trained terrorist using an AK-47.

Now imagine it the other way around.
  • 0
NERF: www.CYCLONENERF.netfirms.com
FLASH: www.thinkhappy.netfirms.com
BAND: www.skwalrock.com

#15 cxwq

cxwq

    Member

  • Founders
  • 3,634 posts

Posted 01 March 2004 - 05:03 PM

However, imagine for a moment the officer isn't facing a defenseless plate-man, and instead is being attacked by a trained terrorist using an AK-47.

Now imagine it the other way around.

A trained terrorist is being attacked by an officer with an AK-47?
  • 0
<meta name="cxwq" content="mostly water">

#16 Langley

Langley

    LGLF - Since 2002

  • Administrators
  • 2,995 posts

Posted 01 March 2004 - 05:18 PM

Or an officer being attacked by a defenceless plate-man.

All I have to say is that this sounds like something the LCM came up with. Watch. The next iteration of the design will have two metalstorm artillery duct taped into an ICBM casing, and there will be a deringer pistol atattched to the side.
  • 0

You can poop in my toilet anytime champ.

2016 Nerf War Schedule
Bless you, my son. Now recite 3 New Members Guides and 5 Code of Conducts for your sins.


#17 merlinski

merlinski

    Member

  • Members
  • 403 posts

Posted 01 March 2004 - 08:30 PM

OK, a million rounds a minute is over 16,000 rounds per second. Unless you're just spraying and praying, those rounds are going in the same direction. How exactly would this help in anti-personnel situations? As for soft targets, I'd rather hit a chopper with one rocket than a few thousand bullets.

It's anti-personnel for the same reason that machine guns are better anti-personnel weapons than bolt-action rifles. The point is to get the widest spread with each shot for the most probability of a hit. I'm not talking about use against one person, more like a squad in a combat situation. If everyone's taking potshots at you from behind a wall, and you can just spray the area with one click, don't you think your odds are a lot better?

If electronic firing is the big story here then I'm impressed that the pentagon is finally catching up to paintball technology. Magnetic and RF safety interlocks are already available for handguns that don't have electronic ignition so that's a non-issue as well.


I don't know much about electric firing in paintball guns, but I know that the basic mechanics of paintball mean that it's not the same as we're talking about here. I'm guessing (correct me if I'm wrong) that electronic firing in paintball guns refers to using a valve operated by a basic circuit attached to the trigger. The breakthrough here isn't that an electronic circuit is telling the firing mechanism when to act, its that the firing mechanism itself is entirely electronic. There is no firing pin, the gunpowder behind the bullet is actually ignited by an elecrode, rather than the impact method previously used. This has never been done before in a multiple round per barrel application.

Right, that's discussed in the article. The problem being that instead of a half dozen magazines you're carrying around a half dozen barrels. It's not that it's impossible, it just seems cumbersome and pointless.


I'd be willing to bet that the volume for half a dozen barrels is pretty close to that of half a dozen magazines, it's just in a different shape.
  • 0

#18 MysticFalcon182

MysticFalcon182

    Member

  • Members
  • 269 posts

Posted 01 March 2004 - 09:04 PM

I don't have much to say, and I'm short on time.

Wow.

Now, integrate it into Nerf :)

~Mystic~
  • 0

#19 Zero Talent

Zero Talent

    Member

  • Contributors
  • 606 posts

Posted 01 March 2004 - 09:06 PM

To say the truth, when I first saw this (dates elude me; in a magazine on a Ferry to Victoria, so it was in some summer... Two years ago, I believe), I just laughed. This use of electronics to ignite flammables is so insanely basic, I always assumed gunsmiths clung to mechanical designs because of inherent problems with electronically-triggered mechanisms, such as electrode oxidation/decay, portable power restraints, or just your average unreliability. The biggest reason this technology ain't so revolutionary is the fact that they've had it around for some time, such as in rocket pods, as people have already alluded.

Back when the topic first breached NHQ, I believe I explained a rather silly design that involves multiple tubes going to designated portions of a barrel, which are fired sequentially to launch a shell at a stop at the end of the barrel, imparting momentum to the dart within, disposing of the shell, and opening up the path for the next sequential shell. Only problem with this? Air isn't used to directly launch the dart. I just find this kind of annoying. Granted, it easily bypasses clip systems, mechanical breeches, and all that silliness, but it introduces a whole new silliness, most prominent being, as with the real design, accuracy.

As to critiques of the Metalstorm design; The most useful feature in my mind is the selection of several different projectiles within a single, compact system. Different kinds of bullets, right? Rubber bullets, taser barbs, Mr. Potato Head, whatever seems convenient, all controlled from one trigger. Screw firing speeds; That's the action movie trait of the technology. I'm sure, as Cxwq mentioned, a larger projectile would be more efficient, simply for the "buy in bulk" cliche.

And I should mention that every design has a weakness. I'm sure most firearms wouldn't work too happily in a sandstorm without proper modification, and all firearms always have a chance of jamming failure. EMP risk will just ensure that metalstorm isn't standard issue without magnetic sheilding or some kind of mechanically-powered redundancy safety.

Anyways, that's my contribution. Designing things to kill weak fleshy things is easy. Let's see some electromagnetically-powered projectile sheilding! :)
  • 0
"'Revere me as hot! All others are not! THIS, I COMMAND!'"
- Death

#20 Alexthebeast

Alexthebeast

    Member

  • Members
  • 728 posts

Posted 01 March 2004 - 09:30 PM

In any case, at least now we know what those pistols in the movie "Underworld" were... :)

Which ones? I like the Dual DEagles she shot through the floor with.
  • 0
<Fooz> In a perfect world... spammers would get caught, go to jail, and share a cell with many men who have enlarged their penisses, taken Viagra and are looking for a new relationship.

#21 serpent sniper

serpent sniper

    Member

  • Members
  • 222 posts

Posted 02 March 2004 - 11:03 PM

I just like the buzz it makes.

On the topic of guns; Ak mp3 player. Stupidest thing ever.
  • 0
Animus GmbH My Custom Nerf Props and Paintjobs

#22 CustomSnake202

CustomSnake202

    Member

  • Members
  • 506 posts

Posted 02 March 2004 - 11:13 PM

Now that was nice of them. I can imagine terrorists listening to "Like a Virgin" while shooting at our U.S. troops. I mean, what kind of terrorist doesn't like Madona?

Edited by CustomSnake202, 02 March 2004 - 11:24 PM.

  • 0

#23 J cobbers

J cobbers

    Member

  • Members
  • 586 posts
  • Location:Fort Hood, TX
  • State:Texas
  • Country:United States

Posted 03 March 2004 - 10:47 AM

Actually I think the electronic firing method has some real merit if they adapt the technology to a clip system. Most of the space taken up by normal bullets comes from the brass shells that hold the gun powder and firing cap. Now imagine a bullet like that in the metal storm which has the solid propellant right behind it, you could fit many more rounds into a standard clip or a drum shaped clip. The electroic firing means you can make the guns lighter and eliminate a lot of the metal used outside of the barrel. I imagine a gun with a single position for the electronic firing, (unlike the metal storm where it sends the spark to different places) and no need for a shell ejection. You could make a pistol with a very simple auto fire or set burts feature, lighter assault rifles that need to be reloaded less fequently, along with the unauthorized user lockout features means better safety.
  • 0

Don't forget to eat your meat based vegetable substitute children.


#24 rawray7

rawray7

    Member

  • Members
  • 549 posts

Posted 04 March 2004 - 09:28 PM

i think that the only real way it would revolutionize ROF without suffering bulky-reloads would be if there was a big clip that fed all of the barrels new bullets + propellent through the back via some sort of rotating device. that as the bullets are being ignited farther and farther back, more bullets are being added from the back to make up for it. even then though, your stuck with a chain or a monstar clip, and i don't even know if that idea would work with the designs they are using it.
  • 0
You, nerfboi, are the suckest gun. -neonerfer

#25 Jappo

Jappo

    Member

  • Members
  • 149 posts
  • Location:North Vancouver, Canada

Posted 05 March 2004 - 11:33 AM

All I have to say is that the pistol for the Cop is really retarded. You give a gun to a cop that will turn the "Suspect" into human ground meat.
  • 0
"When life gives you lemons, you squish those lemons into the eyes of your enemies." - Jappo


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users