Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Building a Full-Auto Gauss Gun

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the science-is-fun dept.

Hardware 285

Okian Warrior writes "Adding to the 3-D printed gun/rifle controversy, Delta-V Engineering built a Full-auto Gauss gun (aka 'machine gun'), capable of firing 15 steel bolts from its magazine in less than two seconds. At 3% the muzzle energy of a .22, it's still in the prototype stage. Bullets are made from turned-down nails, and the gun uses no chemical propellants. The builder has posted the design notes online. Video of the gun in action is pretty interesting."

cancel ×

285 comments

Steel bolts? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44500559)

I'd prefer a Gauss-Gun that could close a railroad crossing, as if a train would pass the receiving induction-rings.

hi (-1, Troll)

Jessica Roy (3011797) | about a year ago | (#44500617)

like Carlos responded I am in shock that a single mom able to make $4260 in one month on the internet. did you see this site,........Buzz55.com... -->

Re:hi (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44500637)

It's so great Slashdot allowed G+ and Facebook logins so we could get even more spamming and shill posts than we used to get.

Re:hi (1)

dgatwood (11270) | about a year ago | (#44501427)

Yeah, this is the first G+ post I've seen, and it's spam. Not a very promising start.

Re:hi (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44500673)

Fuck you, you spammy cunt.

MOD Parent UP!!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44500699)

This information is to important to MISS!

Re:hi (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44501195)

I'm not surprised at all. I hear prostitution pays well these days.

Sensationalist summary at all? (5, Insightful)

tocsy (2489832) | about a year ago | (#44500653)

"Adding to the 3-D printed gun/rifle controversy"

How? Neither the Hack A Day article nor the design notes mention "3d" or "printing," and the fact that it's a gauss gun implies that metal is pretty central to the design... which can't be 3d printed at this point in time.

Re:Sensationalist summary at all? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44500721)

Oh yeah? Well just wait till I 3D-print a nuclear bomb, and then we'll see where your total indifference to the perils of people having access to such a dangerous weapon truly are!

I'm only glad you've not pried my AK-47 from my cold dead hangs, at least if the Zombies come, I'll be able to fight them off.

Re:Sensationalist summary at all? (4, Interesting)

ganjadude (952775) | about a year ago | (#44500763)

actually there are metal 3d printers. they are just not as common and generally not what many are speaking of when talking 3d printers at this point in time. I just did a quick google search and found this one fvor example http://www.3dsystems.com/3d-printers/production/spro-125-direct-metal [3dsystems.com]

Re:Sensationalist summary at all? (1)

tocsy (2489832) | about a year ago | (#44501221)

I... was completely unaware of that - I suppose a simple search would've told me as much. I don't see anything about price though, so who knows if it's actually available to individuals or if you'd have to be super rich to get one.

Re:Sensationalist summary at all? (2)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | about a year ago | (#44501387)

The printers are dear but there's a few fablabs around where you can have your design printed in metal, at a reasonable cost.

Re:Sensationalist summary at all? (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about a year ago | (#44501455)

from my understanding they are at the early adoptor phase, so not generally availible to the masses yet. normal plastic 3d printers are still pricey so the metal ones are a few grand more expensive. cheepest one ive seen was about 11K

Re:Sensationalist summary at all? (4, Informative)

bmk67 (971394) | about a year ago | (#44500793)

Not only that, but this isn't even legally a "gun" under U.S. law.

Re:Sensationalist summary at all? (1)

bobaferret (513897) | about a year ago | (#44500839)

you can 3d print metal FYI..

http://www.3dsystems.com/3d-printers/production/spro-125-direct-metal#.UgKVbkBDtIM

http://gpiprototype.com/services/metal-3d-printing.html

Just some quick google search results on on the topic of "3d printer metal"

Re:Sensationalist summary at all? (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#44500875)

While I agree, I think the underlying tie here is that "fully automatic" has, until this point, been something that requires industrial design and manufacture to incorporate into a design. It's not a trivial thing to do, and requires a fair amount of precise moving parts for weapons with chemical charges.

Re:Sensationalist summary at all? (4, Informative)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#44500961)

Why would you think that?
You can make a fully automatic submachine gun of the open bolt design out of stuff you can find at home depot.

Re:Sensationalist summary at all? (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#44501151)

Yeah, as long as you don't mind the heat from firing to bleed down into your cartridge.

Re:Sensationalist summary at all? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#44501229)

You don't know what firing from an open bolt means do you?

It means that the firing pin is part of the bolt face or fixed onto it and the bolt slamming down on the round is what fires it. In most simple designs the bolt is then thrown back by the round discharging. This design as you can likely now guess vents a lot of heat and as such tends to avoid overheating.

Re:Sensationalist summary at all? (2)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#44501489)

sterns work just fine for warfare. it's a crude design but works. of course you can't go on shooting 1000+ rounds in one go but with few guns can you do that anyways, barrel will go bust before the rounds popping in the magazine.

Re:Sensationalist summary at all? (4, Informative)

g0bshiTe (596213) | about a year ago | (#44501255)

Yes because in WWII they didn't have the technology to make something as simple as a Sten http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sten [wikipedia.org]

Re:Sensationalist summary at all? (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#44501317)

I didn't say modern industrial design.

Re:Sensationalist summary at all? (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#44501355)

You should just admit you were wrong.
Stens are one example of an open bolt automatic that are easy to build and do not require precise moving parts.

Re:Sensationalist summary at all? (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#44500895)

"Adding to the 3-D printed gun/rifle controversy"

How? Neither the Hack A Day article nor the design notes mention "3d" or "printing," and the fact that it's a gauss gun implies that metal is pretty central to the design... which can't be 3d printed at this point in time.

It's doubly sensationalist because Gauss guns (and railguns, though this isn't one) are both technologies beset by the 'If I had a source of nearly-unlimited current with a rise time of ~0, and a supply of superconducting magnets (or, for railguns, unobtanium rails with heroic resistance to welding/resistive heating damage), I could totally fuck you up!' problem.

If you handwave the electrical issues, magnetic accelerators are all kinds of scary. If you don't, you'd be lucky to cram the power supply for anything actually dangerous into a single support vehicle...

Re:Sensationalist summary at all? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44500963)

But but but computers got better, therefore anything else will get better too!

-A Space Nutter

Re:Sensationalist summary at all? (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year ago | (#44501123)

If you handwave the electrical issues, magnetic accelerators are all kinds of scary. If you don't, you'd be lucky to cram the power supply for anything actually dangerous into a single support vehicle...

Unless your support vehicle is an Aegis cruiser or some such thing.

The military is always looking for new and improved ways to lob shit on people from long distance.

It highlights some of the legal issues (3, Insightful)

bugnuts (94678) | about a year ago | (#44501109)

In the US, it is legal to make a gun. A real gun that fires real bullets (one at a time).
But it is illegal to sell it, unless you're a firearms manufacturer.

Most people don't realize this, and is the heart of the 3D printed gun "controversy". The only reason it's a controversy is that most people don't know this. The ATF isn't very concerned, because the 3D printed guns will not really change the amount of guns in circulation... they're a one-off and will not last for generations, unlike a real gun.

I don't believe a gauss gun qualifies as a firearm. Thus, the laws against fully-automatic firearms (or firearms at all) don't apply, and is more akin to a BB gun, paint pellet, or airsoft gun. But this gauss gun has the potential of actually firing lethal rounds because it's not limited to the speed of expanding gases, which I find interesting.

Re:It highlights some of the legal issues (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#44501189)

Actually it is totally legal to sell the gun, so long as that was not the reason you built it. So if you build a gun, and get sick of it a few months later you can legally sell it. This may not be legal in your state though, I am speaking only about federal law.

This gas gun does not have the potential of firing lethal rounds. The speed of expanding gasses is a heck of alot faster than this thing will ever propel a projectile.

Re:It highlights some of the legal issues (1)

g0bshiTe (596213) | about a year ago | (#44501541)

I think the 3d-printed statement was more to draw attention to the fact that there's more ways than just printing guns to make them and that alternate methods exist.

Re:Sensationalist summary at all? (0)

jellomizer (103300) | about a year ago | (#44501165)

This Gun controversy is summed up in Start Trek V.

We outlawed guns, so they just fashioned their own.

Smaller projectiles? (1)

Anne_Nonymous (313852) | about a year ago | (#44500683)

Why not use smaller projectiles at a faster velocity?

Re:Smaller projectiles? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44500883)

Ferromagnetic projectile saturation

Re:Smaller projectiles? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44501041)

So use more coils.

Re:Smaller projectiles? (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year ago | (#44501077)

This was my thought as well. Those projectiles are far too massive for what he's trying to do.

While I haven't done any calculations, it seems to me that a projectile a fraction of that size would be accelerated far better and thus have far greater muzzle energy.

TFA claims it has 3% the muzzle energy of a .22, but it would appear to weigh 10x or more what a .22 slug weighs. Making it smaller and increasing its velocity could massively increase that energy. (If, just VERY rough figuring, you made it 1/5 the weight, it should achieve far more than 5x the muzzle velocity, which could give it (depending on the actual numbers) 10x the energy, bringing it into a range that is halfway respectable.

Re:Smaller projectiles? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#44501249)

How fast can those coils run?

My guess would be he is near those limits so a lighter projectile would not travel much faster.

3% velocity (4, Informative)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#44500701)

okay, a .22 averages around 1,120 f/s [wikipedia.org] . 3% of that is 33.6 feet per second. That translates to around 23 MPH. Yes, I can see how this highly dangerous weapon might add to the controversy of 3D printed guns. It is only slightly slower than an olympic sprinter running at full tilt [hypertextbook.com] .

Re:3% velocity (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#44500787)

Terrifying, this flings nails not quite as fast as a young child could through them.

Re:3% velocity (2)

bmk67 (971394) | about a year ago | (#44501133)

Precisely!!!11! Won't you think of the nail-flinging children?

Re:3% velocity (2)

internerdj (1319281) | about a year ago | (#44501357)

As if the internet didn't have enough ways to go blind.

Re:3% velocity (1)

ModernGeek (601932) | about a year ago | (#44500795)

I want to know what's been keeping someone from building a beefier, actually deadly version of these.

Re:3% velocity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44500853)

Probably just that this is a friggen PROTOTYPE (FTS), indicating that they WILL build a deadly version of this. Shit, who the fuck doesn't understand how "progress" works?

Re:3% velocity (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#44500931)

Probably just that this is a friggen PROTOTYPE (FTS), indicating that they WILL build a deadly version of this. Shit, who the fuck doesn't understand how "progress" works?

I'm pretty sure our first ICBM prototype wasn't a water-pump model with a warhead on the top of it. The mature versions of this technology are typically ship- or airplane-mounted, and require huge amounts of energy. Simply put, there won't be a personal-use version of this technology until a revolution in battery technology happens. The energy densities are several orders of magnitude too low right now.

Bottom line here is it's a nice science project for bored electrical engineers. But that's it. It's the EE's version of your 3rd grade "volcano"... pour in some baking soda, vinegar, and food coloring, and hope you get a passing grade.

Re:3% velocity (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about a year ago | (#44501507)

Simply put, there won't be a personal-use version of this technology until a revolution in battery technology happens. The energy densities are several orders of magnitude too low right now.

A single chunky but not especially big 5000C lipo battery can dump out about 2 kW for a minute and a half or so before discharging. Astonishingly they are acutally rated for that current. With a 10% conversion efficiency, that would be about equivalent to a 9mm pistol round every few seconds.

Not super impressive, but not terrible either.

The thing is tha autoloader is actually pretty good. That's probably the hardest part.

Scaling up gauss guns is pretty easy since that part is understood. You need bigger, lower inductance capacitors, larger thyristors and more powerful charging hardware.

It does however look like the coilgun part is indeed a bottlerocket equivalent for now.

That said, even bottle rockets can be juiced a bit. I used to send them up with a launch pressure of 50 to 100psi.

Re:3% velocity (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#44501525)

Probably just that this is a friggen PROTOTYPE (FTS), indicating that they WILL build a deadly version of this. Shit, who the fuck doesn't understand how "progress" works?

I'm pretty sure our first ICBM prototype wasn't a water-pump model with a warhead on the top of it.

Apples and oranges - an ICBM is based on long existing and well-vetted technology rocket-based weapons technology; it's more akin to the not-yet-existing "deadly version" mentioned by OP than the prototype. Even the "first ICBM prototype" was based on pretty well known, time tested stuff.

You'd be more accurate if you compared this prototype to, say, Goddard's rockets [nasa.gov] from the early 20th Century.

Re:3% velocity (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#44501053)

Physics?

You need a ridiculous amount of current, you need coils with a near instant rise time and you need switches that flip instantly. Good luck.

Re:3% velocity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44501097)

Time, Money, Weight. Mostly the last one I suspect. What it really boils down to is the age old problem of energy density. We don't have anything small enough to be viable that can provide enough power to be functional.

Re:3% velocity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44501099)

Basic physics. F=BLI

Re:3% velocity (1)

Type44Q (1233630) | about a year ago | (#44500829)

It is only slightly slower than an olympic sprinter running at full tilt

I don't have to outrun you, I just have to outrun your bullets...

Re:3% velocity (1)

WiseWeasel (92224) | about a year ago | (#44500831)

The article [hackaday.com] mentions an actual speed of 40m/s, which converts to 144km/h or around 90 MPH. Still not setting any records, but the video does indicate these things can do some damage.

Re:3% velocity (1)

Desler (1608317) | about a year ago | (#44500905)

The article is wrong. Even the fastest 22 bullet has a velocity of 1640 feet/sec or 500 m/sec. 3% of 500 is only 15 m/sec or around 33 mph.

Re:3% velocity (1)

Desler (1608317) | about a year ago | (#44500933)

So either the 3% figure is wrong or the 40m/s figure is wrong.

Re:3% velocity (4, Informative)

Ardyvee (2447206) | about a year ago | (#44501201)

Neither, considering that the article mentions 3% muzzle energy of an .22 LR which is different than the muzzle velocity. Proof: this picture here [puu.sh]

Re:3% velocity (1)

H0p313ss (811249) | about a year ago | (#44501453)

As usual, the summary is wrong and Slashdotters can't be bothered to read the article.

Re:3% velocity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44500841)

Moreover, this implies 0.1% kinetic energy. So fire 1,000 of these at the same time to get an impact of one 0.22 shot.

Re:3% velocity (1)

TheCarp (96830) | about a year ago | (#44500887)

Yup. Actually I was recently interested in coil guns and using my 3d printer to turn out some ideas I was having. It was fun but, I never actually even got to a working prototype. I did however do some reading up on what others have done and.... its a mixture of impressive and not so much.

This site http://www.coilgun.ru/ [coilgun.ru] attempts to track and showcase where hobbiests have gotten on coil guns. Only a handful of them are at the point that I would consider them even passable weapons. Most are, at best, minor annoyances on the level of "you will put an eye out". Maybe some could kill/injure someone with a point blank shot directly to the eye socket, or a very "lucky" hit.

The most impressive I saw fired with an SCR and used a second SCR dampening circuit to shut down the original SCR.

~30 m/s seems to be about the best most designs have been able to hit, with many being far less than that, and only a few making it into the 45-50 m/s range. Even those top end seem to get only around 5-6 Joules of kinetic energy.

Re:3% velocity (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#44500993)

Eh, small point of reference. A coil gun and a gauss gun are two different things. A coil gun works by pulling the slug magnetically down the barrel. A gauss gun works by putting the slug on rails and running a charge across it. But neither are going to be particularly dangerous with the amount of electricity available to your average home owner. -_-

Re:3% velocity (1)

TheCarp (96830) | about a year ago | (#44501075)

Interesting, I always thought a gauss gun was a coil gun, and what you are describing is a rail gun.

Since gauss is a measure of magnetic field strength, and both of them use magnetic fields to propel the projectile (albeit through different mechanisms, since one is a passive projectile and the other is actually an odd form of single loop coil that has an unusually low resistance to deformation in one direction) it would make sense to me to call both gauss guns, and use coil/rail to differentiate the types.

Re:3% velocity (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#44501119)

Eh.... my bad. I haven't had my morning coffee yet... whrrrggrrrble.

Re:3% velocity (1)

Antipater (2053064) | about a year ago | (#44501175)

No, a coilgun and a gauss gun are the same thing. "Putting the slug on rails and running a charge across it" is a railgun.

Re:3% velocity (1)

Antipater (2053064) | about a year ago | (#44501209)

In other news, I post too slowly.

Re:3% velocity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44501313)

No, you got that backwards; what you're describing is a rail gun.

A gauss gun is in fact a coil gun.

Hint: A rail gun works by the Lorentz force. A coil gun generates a magnetic field, measured in Gauss (well, now measured in Tesla, but I'd think anything named a tesla gun would involve beamed energy).

Re:3% velocity (4, Informative)

Trailer Trash (60756) | about a year ago | (#44501029)

If you RTFA, you'll find that the muzzle energy is 3% of that of a .22, not the velocity. The velocity is about 40m/s, or about 90MPH.

Re:3% velocity (1)

JockTroll (996521) | about a year ago | (#44501239)

When I throw a dozen of olympic sprinters at full tilt at you, you won't be amused. Not at all. But I will be.

Re:3% velocity (1)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | about a year ago | (#44501365)

It is only slightly slower than an olympic sprinter running at full tilt.

I still wouldn't want to get shot with it.

Re:3% velocity (1)

Izuzan (2620111) | about a year ago | (#44501385)

the Designer claims it fires the nails at 9000 Feet Per Second. i asked him to verify that as a 556 nato round is only going 3500 FPS at most. and firing a 556 in a room like that would be dangerous with a steel projectile as it would ricochet around the room.

Re:3% velocity (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#44501435)

You can tell from the video that is not possible.
1. They would go right through the laptop and the rest of the building.
2. They would have made a sonic boom/crack, like even the lowly .22 does.
3. What magic power source would do that?
4. What magic coils would power up that quickly?

Re:3% velocity (3, Insightful)

pruss (246395) | about a year ago | (#44501431)

The muzzle velocity is 40 m/s according to the article, i.e., 131 ft/sec or 89 mi/h. I wouldn't want to be hit with that.

The 3% figure refers to the kinetic energy, and perhaps reflects a less massive projectile than the .22 shoots.

3D printing controversy? (3, Insightful)

Feyshtey (1523799) | about a year ago | (#44500729)

Saying that this contributes to the "3-D printed gun/rifle controversy" is a falacy. This weapon has limited components associated with 3D printing. The majority of the device appears to be machined aluminum. Not to mention the large about of electronics and power technology incorporated in the design. This has about as much to do with the "3-D printed gun/rifle controversy" as it does the "electrical engineering controversy".

Re:3D printing controversy? (0)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#44500843)

Saying that this contributes to the "3-D printed gun/rifle controversy" is a falacy.

*Fallacy. Anyway... it does contribute, just not in the way the author thinks: So far, attempts to produce a reliable 3-D printed gun have resulted in spectacular failure. This one manages to unleash a metal slug at a speed you can literally out run if you're in shape. I can throw a baseball faster than this thing, and it'll cause more damage too. If this is the best 3-D printed "gun/rifles" can do, then I think we can rest easy for awhile. There is no controversy when the best you can produce is a gun that might tickle you...

Re:3D printing controversy? (1)

pherthyl (445706) | about a year ago | (#44501091)

>> This one manages to unleash a metal slug at a speed you can literally out run if you're in shape. I can throw a baseball faster than this thing, and it'll cause more damage too.

Wow, you can run at 140km/h? Why don't you compete in the olympics?

Re:3D printing controversy? (1)

Feyshtey (1523799) | about a year ago | (#44501477)

There's no controversy anyway. There are plenty of ways one can create a gun that dont involve 3D printing. The only thing that uneducated people point at to "prove" that this is a controversy is the lack of skill required to 3D print a firearm. That also is a fallacy. Aside from the fact that there arent current materials that make it a viable means to create a weapon, and you must still be able to hone, clean, and assemble firearms in a manner that avoids blowing your own face off when you fire the thing, you can still build a very effective weapon if you can run a drill and screw steel pipes together.

The means to make a weapon is irrelevant. You can make nasty shit with what's under your kitchen sink but you dont hear about a crusade against cleaning products. The only reason that this "controversy" has gained any traction are the shear volume of people with equal ignorance of both 3D printing and firearms.

Re:3D printing controversy? (1)

csumpi (2258986) | about a year ago | (#44501467)

Saying that this contributes to the "3-D printed gun/rifle controversy" is a falacy.

Sure, but it ups the page views. Welcome to the new /.

And yet ... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year ago | (#44500731)

Oh, sure, they can make this, but I still can't find a stapler which will go through more than about 10 pages without resorting to the big monster next to the printer. ;-)

3% velocity of a .22 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44500735)

So how is this a gun exactly? I'm now very curious about .22 velocity in relation to throwing objects by hand and will now do some very interesting searches.

NFA? (1)

i.r.id10t (595143) | about a year ago | (#44500757)

Lets hope he's got all his tax documents in line with the BATFE ....

Re:NFA? (1)

bmk67 (971394) | about a year ago | (#44500825)

Why? It's not a firearm, and therefore does not fall under NFA.

Re:NFA? (1)

OverlordQ (264228) | about a year ago | (#44501253)

Yes it is.

For the purposes of the National Firearms Act the term Machinegun means:

        Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger
        The frame or receiver of any such weapon
        Any part designed and intended solely and exclusively or combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, or
        Any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person."

This clearly falls under the the first point.

Re:NFA? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44501395)

The NFA only applies to *FIREARMS*.

This does not meet the definition of a *FIREARM*

You are quoting the definition of a *MACHINE GUN*, not a *FIREARM*. *MACHINE GUNS* are strictly a subset of the set *FIREARMS*.

Re:NFA? (1)

bmk67 (971394) | about a year ago | (#44501443)

No. It is not. The NFA covers firearms, not weapons which are not firearms.

Please, contact the ATF and inquire about a NFA stamp for a full-auto air gun and see what they say. Or a gauss gun, for that matter.

Re:NFA? (3, Insightful)

EmperorArthur (1113223) | about a year ago | (#44501499)

Yes it is.

For the purposes of the National Firearms Act the term Machinegun means:

        Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger

        The frame or receiver of any such weapon

        Any part designed and intended solely and exclusively or combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, or

        Any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person."

This clearly falls under the the first point.

Ehh, who needs mod points.

By that definition, then nerf and airsoft machine guns are illegal. Clearly you're missing something. Either that, or the US laws really are that bad, and the only reason why everyone is not in jail is because of selective enforcement.

For those who don't realize it, selective enforcement means the government and police can throw anyone they dislike in jail. It's a major enabler of tyranny.

Do remember how fast 3% of the muzzle velocity is (1)

ThatTreeOverThere (2632641) | about a year ago | (#44500801)

I hope you guys do notice that this is slower than the average CO2 pellet rifle... if it fires at 40 feet per second or so, why wouldn't I just buy a normal BB gun or something? I could more easily just grab a 540 fps .22 air rifle for maybe $60 right off the shelf of a Dick's Sporting Goods. And what in hell does this have to do with 3D Printing??

Re:Do remember how fast 3% of the muzzle velocity (1)

iggymanz (596061) | about a year ago | (#44501001)

even an amateur-made slingshot would be faster

hard to beat gases for pushing projectiles unless you have the nuclear reactor and gen set of a battleship handy

Re:Do remember how fast 3% of the muzzle velocity (1)

Pinhedd (1661735) | about a year ago | (#44501015)

The post claims about 40 m/s which seems pretty reasonable given the video footage, that's about 120 feet per second.

Re:Do remember how fast 3% of the muzzle velocity (1)

csumpi (2258986) | about a year ago | (#44501509)

this is slower than the average CO2 pellet rifle

Yeah, but the bullets are much bigger. So this would hurt a lot more than a pellet.

And what in hell does this have to do with 3D Printing??

Nothing. But adding that increases the page views. This is how timothy's gonna buy that Ferrari.

Lots of Power (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44500867)

This kind of gauss weapon is not new. The big limitation is power.

If you're the U.S. Navy, with a nuclear power plant aboard your aircraft carrier, a railgun is easy to power:
http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,160195,00.html [military.com]

A rifle? Catch Doc Brown next time he stops over in 2013. Maybe he has an extra Mr. Fusion to spare.
If you throw that in a backpack, maybe you can power your handheld rifle for a few shots.

Re:Lots of Power (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#44501007)

This kind of gauss weapon is not new. The big limitation is power.

If you're the U.S. Navy, with a nuclear power plant aboard your aircraft carrier, a railgun is easy to power:
http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,160195,00.html [military.com]

A rifle? Catch Doc Brown next time he stops over in 2013. Maybe he has an extra Mr. Fusion to spare.
If you throw that in a backpack, maybe you can power your handheld rifle for a few shots.

Couldn't BFC's (Big Fucking Capacitors) be used to store charges? Like the kind you would get from a car stereo dealer? [sonicelectronix.com]

Can anyone explain why they would/wouldn't work? I'm fairly newbish when it comes to the intricacies of electronics, and trying my best to develop a healthy understanding.

Re:Lots of Power (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44501267)

The issue isn't how much power you can store to discharge, the issue is the more power you discharge the stronger the coils and barrel have to be. Too much power and when the coils flex from the magnetic flux they can crush the barrel, rip themselves apart, or just simply melt.

Would toenails work? (1)

G3ckoG33k (647276) | about a year ago | (#44500989)

My neighbor's kid brother used to spit them at us while watching tv when he was a kid. I just wish I had had some chemical propellant to blast him off.

Summary incorrect - not 3% muzzle velocity (0)

iONiUM (530420) | about a year ago | (#44500997)

Right from the youtube comments (from poster):

"[muzzle velocity is] over 9000 feet per second" - this is from the uploader of the video. How exactly is that less than a .22? The issue with the weapon shown right now is the rounds used (inefficient).

Re:Summary incorrect - not 3% muzzle velocity (1)

brit74 (831798) | about a year ago | (#44501105)

Yeah, I verified that the comment exists, but I'm certain that it's wrong. Based on the damage he does to the cans and the laptop computer, there's no way his bullets are travelling at 6000+ MPH.

Re:Summary incorrect - not 3% muzzle velocity (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#44501141)

9000 fps cannot be right.
That would make this thing supersonic.

At 9000fps these nails would go through the back of his garage, not be stopped by a laptop screen.

Re:Summary incorrect - not 3% muzzle velocity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44501415)

Over 9000! Where have I heard that before?
I am pretty sure he was making a play on a recent meme.

Re:Summary incorrect - not 3% muzzle velocity (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#44501473)

Have you collected all the dragon balls?

Re:Summary incorrect - not 3% muzzle velocity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44501147)

And the words "over 9000" never imply sarcasm on the internet....

Re:Summary incorrect - not 3% muzzle velocity (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | about a year ago | (#44501251)

Ah, yes. Youtube comments. The ultimate source of unbiased truth. And so wise.

Re:Summary incorrect - not 3% muzzle velocity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44501511)

Right from the youtube comments (from poster):

"[muzzle velocity is] over 9000 feet per second" - this is from the uploader of the video. How exactly is that less than a .22? The issue with the weapon shown right now is the rounds used (inefficient).

This is the sort of BS that arises when Slashdot editors don't link to the original source [deltaveng.com]

in which, in no uncertain terms, it is stated:

Muzzle Velocity: 42.03m/s
Muzzle Energy: 10.87J

why use nails when you have (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44501127)

seek, and ye shall find
http://www.mcmaster.com/#standard-dowel-pins/=nypnvg

That's 65% more bullet per bullet! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44501283)

Now all he needs is designer colors and a cute AI voice.

Can you imagine... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44501407)

... a beuwolf cluster of these!

I don't care who you are (1)

g0bshiTe (596213) | about a year ago | (#44501501)

That's bad ass!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...