HOME | DD
Internet-Cancer — The Rail Gun
Published: 2010-11-22 02:47:42 +0000 UTC; Views: 7590; Favourites: 45; Downloads: 69
Redirect to original
Description
Meh. I'm bored and felt like uploading something random.Related content
Comments: 89
they're pretty damn easy to build, actually.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
At its most basic, the key components are:
1. 2 magnetic rails. Most commonly, a steel alloy.
2. Paramagnetic launcher or projectile, most commonly aluminum or copper.
3. capacitors. Huge capacitors.
How these work is by dumping a huge amount of electricity from the capacitors and into the rails. When it goes through the projectile/launcher, the paramagnetic object creates a magnetic field that opposes the rails.
You can find many guides on how to make these.
Hell, you could dumpster dive and make a rail gun. I mean it's not going to be a practical weapon but if you want to explode watermelons for youtube videos for a good laugh, it's not that difficult if you have the skills.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That's it??? I might have to try that...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
be fucking careful and seriiously do the math. You don't want a high current, high energy 2,000,000 volt pulse going through your arm. These things are designed to dump massive amounts of electricity through these rails for a nanosecond to obtain these huge velocities. The energy to launch projectiles into hypersonic speeds has to come from somewhere, and you DO NOT want it going through your body.
Like seriously it's the energy of a miniature lightning bolt.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's not like I haven't been hit by lightning before. Let's just say lightning struck the septic tank while I was washing dishes. That fucking hurt!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
and I shocked myself with a Tesla coil.
Don't play around with high voltage. You'll regret it and it doesn't even leave a cool scar.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
When I pissed on an electric fence, that left a scar, but not one that everyone can see (legally)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
masochism and an unflinching disregard for your health and/or life is nothing to be proud of. You DO know this, right?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I know, but nothing healthy or safe is ever fun!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It could be sometimes. After your death, go find someone that you dearly hate as a spirit, and scare the living shit out of them.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
*eyebrow rises*
How petty
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
*dies*
"Well better hang around the people I hate. They're worth my time after I died."
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
well if you want to build a rail gun and disregard the safety hazards I'd expect that
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, uh, I'm not an engineer of ANY kind. I'm just a teenage idiotic red neck out in the sticks.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
no
www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwlNPh…
this is a chuck norris fart
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
in very simple terms what's the between railguns and Coilguns
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
A rail gun utilizes two rails and its projectile to provide opposing magnetic forces.
A coil gun uses electromagnets to motivate or take advantage of a magnetic field to accelerate its projectile instead of having the projectile directly contact the electrical current.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
which one would be better for standard infantry
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Infantry?
Rail gun, most definitely.
The picture I used in not photoshopped. Rail guns are being researched for use in the military, and their only limitation is that they fire so goddamn hard that they are having trouble with the guns not blowing up from the sheer magnetic force, and the projectiles not COLLAPSING under the immense amount of pressure that the inertia from their own acceleration brings.
Imagine, if you will, a 1-ton shell, not loaded with any sort of explosive at all, slamming into an air field. Not exactly impressive since it's a dummy shot.
Fire it from a perfected rail gun...it slams into that air field with the force of a goddamn nuclear bomb.
Coil guns have similar, if not the same potential, but rail guns fire faster and better than what coil guns we have at the moment.
Coil guns have several limitations. If it doesn't fire a projectile with paramagnetic properties (such as aluminum or copper), then it fires only as fast as its controlling computer can discharge capacitors into the coils. Another one is that these materials are generally lightweight and very malleable, but this sort of coincides with standard modern ammunition which (at least in bullets) lead and copper. An armor piercing shell might have a steel bolt or be made of tungsten.
A tungsten alloy is probably much better for both of these, and most certainly the best for a railgun because its hardness is comparable to that of diamond. In fact, Tungsten carbide is second only to diamond. But if you're talking about compression strength, we need to work on our composites. Oddly enough, something like a chalk or glass compound might actually be able to handle the pressures inside of a rail gun, its only weakness being that such a projectile would be shaken apart and burn up upon leaving the "barrel".
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
well its for this sci fi thing so ad like 70 years or more r&d
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The only weakness with rail guns is the charge time, and 70 years or so should more or less place them on the battlefield.
So here's how I'd do it. Rail guns for mobile infantry and coil guns for fixed positions. I'd recommend reading up on both of them because they are so similar.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
well 70-80 years could make them both no larger than an m16 or L85 but would you need a constant power supply ?
now with both you wouldn't need a bullet casing would ?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You might be interested in this journal . I'd recommend skipping down to the plasma weaponry or the kinetic bomb section. It would help you with ideas.
You could do with a constant power supply.
Or in my book (which is set in the 54000+ years) they've been shrunk into handgun and assault rifle form. The power supply comes with the magazine, and there are chemical cartridges that accelerate the projectiles. When the bullet meets the charged rifling, the current in the helical rails is completed and the projectile is accelerated to Mach 16+ velocities.
Technically with this type of weaponry you don't need a chemical cartridge or a casing. But since our guns are all designed with blowback, short-recoil, and gas operated systems it would make semiautomatic and automatic systems much easier to use.
Remember, int he case of modern artillery, we still have to
1) swab the barrel of any embers
2) wet sponge the barrel to put out any leftover embers
3) load the projectile
4) load the powder.
If you're talking about field artillery, you have horribly slow load time since artillery is meant to fire from the sidelines and support a force while they push forward. They're meant for power in blowing their targets to dust and being able to push on and pull off the sidelines, not ease of use.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
well I was planning on them using bullets with no casing firing either a 50cal Or British 303 or a complete fictional round that's 4-5cm long and half or 1cm in diameter, that's hollowed in length ways with an explosive charge and a small micro chip that with their armours smart computer will explode once its penetrated a human body or armor
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
so it's basically a smart grenade.
Because of sanctions on ammunition, I would make your bullets dedicated to anti-material roles, since hollow-points and exploding bullets are banned under the Geneva Conventions. 70-80 years into the future it's highly probable that the Conventions will still be in effect. Firing something like that into human targets is a war crime under current laws. Using them as frag grenades isn't but the fact that they are intended to explode inside of the body makes that ammunition illegal.
What you're describing is a HEAP round, or High Explosive Armor Piercing. That sort of ammunition is solely dedicated to anti-material warfare. If it was AP or HE, it wouldn't really be an issue. But combining the two is a big legal no-no.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
well at first its human targets but then it something not entirely human
what kind of government would be most applicable cause i was going to have a Majority of earth's nation combine but i dont weather it should be a federation or republic
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
In any case I'd think about that. It depends on what kind of society you're going for. A more violent society wouldn't care about exploding bullets because its more concerned with upholding peace and/or taking down violent criminals with the most brutal broad axe that the society can develop. A peaceful one would be concerned with human rights.
In the case of non-human targets, that would more or less apply to what current laws that society has in place. If they need to do a mandatory strike to repulse an invasion, my guess is that they would follow the standard rules of war.
In the case f a republic versus a federation...why compromise? Blend the two. On a global scale, that would work much better.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
those non human targets aren't just ETs but kinda Zombies mutants things
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'd think there would be a few humanitarians, but if it's a question of blowing things to bits because that is the only/safest way of delivering gratuitous amounts of murder, go with it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
ah cool OK what Calibre should i use 303 or 50cal
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That depends on what you're using the ammunition for. The .50 BMG round has a range of nearly 5 miles and it packs enough punch to be used against lightly armored vehicles. It is helpful in urban zones (the rounds can punch through walls) and open areas for suppressive fire, destructive ordinance and anti-aircraft measures.
.303 is mostly for battle rifles, sniper rifles, and LMGs. And while there are .50 cal sniper rifles, those are more for super-long range shooting.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
plus being launched from a rail gun at mac 8-9
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That's more than three times the muzzle velocity standard .50 ammunition fires from a gun.
If launched from an automatic platform, that would make some absolutely devastating artillery. I mean, the .50 Browning Machine Gun has a solid reputation for being absolutely terrifying, dependable, and powerful enough to shoot through reinforced concrete.
But something that not many people know about it is that it has a range of 4.5 miles, giving it anti-aircraft capabilities.
If your rail gun is compact enough, that would open up a new era of warfare: small explosive rounds launched at incredible velocity from three times the range standard .50 bullets are usually launched. Imagine, if you will, a drone or a high altitude support fire craft firing these little shells of terrifying death from literally ten miles away from the battlefield.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
those HEAP OR SABOT rounds I mentioned earlier being fired at 800-900 rounds A minute FROM gun no bigger than an M16(standard issue) No bigger than an SA80 (spec ops and commando) and MK23 (sidearm ALL braches)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
With automatic fire...usually full auto is only used in emergencies or when there is no machine gunner with an LMG to lay down suppressive fire. Yeah, it looks cool to fire them and just empty a magazine, but a standard M4 has a magazine capacity of 30, and firing those at a rate of 900 rounds a minute empties the magazine pretty damn fast.
And with an MK23, I would advise against that. While they are completely dominating in the 'utter complete fucking badass handgun' department, they were meant for clandestine use. The .45 SCP cartridge was used because it packs a lot of stopping power and is also subsonic, meaning the weapon is meant to be fired quietly with a suppressor. If it is power that they need, I would tell you to go towards the Desert Eagle, but in compromising power and mobility I'm going to point you to 10mm Auto. Some 9mm cartridges can punch through armor, and NATO likes 9mm because you can fit a lot of them in one magazine. I prefer 10mm Auto because it was designed to be as powerful as a Magnum cartridge and somewhat compact.
A list of notable guns firing this cartridge are:
Glock 20
Glock 29
Brent Ten (discontinued and somewhat rare)
AMT Hardballer Javelina (also sort of rare, but...look at this thing! )
Colt Delta Elite (pretty much a 1911 that fires this cartridge)
MP5/10 (submachine gun...NOT a pistol)
S&W 610 (if you know what a revolver is and what it looks like, you know what this is and don't need to look it up)
The disadvantage with all of these pistols is magazine capacity. That's one thing that your MK23 has over these, because it holds 2-6 rounds more than any 10mm guns here, but if it is purely a question of power and magazine capacity, go with the Glock 29. It's more compact, holds 3 more rounds than the MK23, and packs a metric shit ton more power. Also remember, the MK23 weighs 3.2 pounds when loaded. That's half an M4 carbine. The Glock 29 on the other hand, weighs 2.06 pounds, and that's even lighter than the standard issue Beretta 92FS that our special forces use.
The one flaw that the Glock 29 has is recoil. The kick from a 10mm Auto is hard to hold down and requires quite a bit of practice, and that's part of the reason that the MK23 is so big- it's designed to handle the recoil of the .45 ACP it fires.
So really, do you want to carry half an M4 when it only has a third of the power of an M4, are you going to use that space for extra ammo, or are you gong to fill it with a more compact and hugely more powerful handgun?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
so more o f a desert eagle sidearm, 18 or 24 round since its technically ceaseless the magazine loads in front of the trigger guard and so is the Assault rifle but instead of loading vertically(Sidearm) it loads horizontally loads the magazine www.imfdb.org/images/thumb/9/9… or P90
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So you want a sort of TEC-9 sort of deal. Honestly, those guns are short-range spray n' pray sorts of deals.
With a magazine size like that, I'm reminded of the Claridge Hi-Tech which is 9mm
Ah, the Bizon...so you want a helical magazine. I have nothing against those.
These are human weapons, right?
I mean, is weight and recoil an issue here?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
www.imfdb.org/wiki/File:Custom… that's the sidearm semi auto not full
with the recoil there are dampeners and the suit my soldiers wear means they can take it but most civilian and law enforce have to use bullets
the mag on the assault rifle 48 rounds or less ?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
pfff. That Glock only looks like it loads from the front. In reality it loads from the back.
Honestly look at that thing. If it loaded from where you're saying it loaded, that would make the barrel maybe an inch long, and for a gun that big, that would give absolutely terrible muzzle velocity and accuracy.
No, if you want a cool, practical gun that looks like that, go for something that is a miniaturized version of the .45 Vector . Little recoil and a big cartridge. It's not my 10mm Auto, but it is still your .45 ACP.
However...that thing is an absolute beast of a sidearm, isn't it?
There's sort of a failure of communication here. Try looking at what pistols would be useful for the situations you're going to have in your book, rather than which ones look cool. I'm giving you recommendations on real-world information. If you're going for an unrealistic action novel, authors generally don't care about what their characters are armed with. One book I read that was set in the mid-90s had its main character using a Nazi Mauser C96 broomhandle pistol, and those things are horribly rare, expensive, and hard to use. The full automatic fire is the reason it ame with a detachable stock, and even then muzzle climb was an issue. I didn't care because it was awesome. Another book armed its secret agents with Desert Eagles. Who the fuck doesn't like Desert Eagles? They're the ultimate symbol of phallic dominance! Yet another set in the 2000s had a villain using a 13mm aemi-automatic pistol. In case you don't know, .50 caliber is 12.7mm. This guy was lobbing bullets larger than the Desert Eagle fires. How in the holy mother of fuck did he control that thing? I DON'T CARE IT WAS AWESOME.
Just go with what you think fits. But until then, here's my advice.
The whole problem with loading a pistol in front of the trigger is that it extends the pistol by a good 3 inches. A "sidearm" is meant to be compact and to be used as a backup. The weapons you've mentioned so far, such as the MK23 and the Desert Eagle, are offensive pistols. This is the reason the 1911 and the Beretta are so big. They're meant for close-quarters combat and stealth.
The Desert Eagle is a car chase weapon meant to shoot through engine blocks. I mean...apart from hunting, why would you use a pistol firing such a massive cartridge? It's impractical because it literally weighs as much as an M16 and it only holds 8 rounds. A sidearm like a Beretta, while heavy, still holds a default 12 rounds, 30 if you buy the extended mag. The advantage of the Glock is its polymer frame, making it light. its double-stack magazine allows the default magazine size in the Glock 17 to hold 17 bullets. Granted, they're 9mm and not packing the same punch. But a 9mm has the same penetration as a .45, but without the ability to cavitate inside of the body. What is cavitation? Well, it's shoving the flesh aside and creating a cavity. It's ripping up the insides.
If you're up against armored targets at short-mid range, go with the .45.
If you need a lot of lead in the air, go with the 9mm.
If you need to punch through body armor, go with 10mm Auto.
If you're in car chases, go with .50AE.
If you're going with a front-loading pistol, it better have a barrel extension, but that would make it bigger.
...wow this turned into an essay.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
sorry for being a derp
in any case if a small projectile like a 10mm is traveling at mach 9 or 10 it would to more damage then at normal speeds using chemical propellant right that's what a rail gun does
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
A 9mm bullet would do a lot of damage traveling at that speed.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
and so would a 7.62 or 5.56 ? so I wont need to make a completely fiction round for a Standard AR and use heap or sabot rounds for Sniper rifles
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
if you're going to be using rail guns for standard format, 5.56.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>