AR Sponsor
Posted: 3/23/2004 5:40:39 PM EDT
|
I just got this from a friend in Finland. The bullet in the pics is .308 and 30.06 but the 5.56mm round will be the next one to try and make. Here is a finnish translation of the descriptio: Short translations - descriptions on the scans. Notice, copyright: Finnish arms mag. REKYYLI. 1. The control unit. Installed to a Valmet Petra. 2. The cartridge. Drawing with specs in english ( manufacturers ). 3. The bullet shot. Fired through a balloon filled with 37 Cels. water and cardboard to a stack of wet telephone catalogs. The bullet is 150 grain ( .30-06 ). Ref. to the manufacturer, also other calibers will be introduced and available. 4. The accuracy. Moving target - cardboard ( regular hangun or pistol size ). Distance 100 m.     |
|
These are definitely more for warfare than for policework. Given that they are battery-powered, they would have a fairly short storage life (probably under 5 years). I would be interested in seeing a firing demonstration, though, that showed the round steering itself onto a target. -Troy |
|
Probably not as spectacular as it sounds. I'm guessing if the shot was too far off the bullet would have a hell of a time correcting enough before it went by you (reeeaaaaaalllllllyyyy long turn radius) What it there were a lot of warm bodies or heat and fires around, wouldn't that confuse it? |
|
How do the "Microwings" affect trajectory? Ever see one of those cool shock wave models like this [img]http://64.177.53.248/maddog/pics/bali_1.jpg[/img] Microwings don't look like they would be too effective in that sort of environment. Also must be shot out a smooth bore, right? Or the 300,000 rpm of the projectile might cause some trouble for the wings. How does the "IR imaging head" see through the heat generated at the tip of the projectile by the friction of Mach 3 flight? How does the "CPU" withstand the 50,000psi + of the powder igniting? Why is the battery inside the case with the wire, where both will presumably be destroyed upon firing? What powers the "CPU" after the battery is destroyed? Why is the notation on the target in English and not Finnish? |
|
the capacitor would hold a reserve electrical charge that should power the ecm long enough to get the job done, but to actually get that to work, still seems Daunting. I think they would have to base the computer target aquisition on that the shooter is competent enough to at at least to get within a set distance from the target with the initial aim. and then how would you compensate for the heat generated from the firing of the projectial interfering with IR sensory differentiation of the targets, while in theory a doable idea, it brings back recolections of STAR WARS in the eighties, still a few years out.... |
|
Quoted: How do the "Microwings" affect trajectory? Ever see one of those cool shock wave models like this [url]http://64.177.53.248/maddog/pics/bali_1.jpg[/url] Microwings don't look like they would be too effective in that sort of environment. Also must be shot out a smooth bore, right? Or the 300,000 rpm of the projectile might cause some trouble for the wings. How does the "IR imaging head" see through the heat generated at the tip of the projectile by the friction of Mach 3 flight? How does the "CPU" withstand the 50,000psi + of the powder igniting? Why is the battery inside the case with the wire, where both will presumably be destroyed upon firing? I imagine it's because you want as much lead as possible in the bullet and don't want to waste space with low density materials. What powers the "CPU" after the battery is destroyed? The capacitor, I imagine; it's not going to use much integrated current over the time of flight. Why is the notation on the target in English and not Finnish? I dunno. Neither do I know the answer to your first questions, which seem like rather difficult obstacles. I would be shocked if this technology was really here in small arms ammunition. Someday, I'm sure, but it seems unfeasible right now. |
|
That's what I thought right in the beginning, it was a bad joke. A friend of mine who runs a gunshop in Finland said: quote Don´t worry that story is bullshit and it indeed is bad joke. It was supposed to be somekind of april fools story... Markus unquote Let's be more serious and don't invent things that don't obey to the law of physics. |
|
Once again, why there is NO way it could work: I want to snipe the tank commander: [img]http://www.army-technology.com/contractor_images/fibrotex/thermal-threat-3.gif[/img] I want to hit the moving gunman in the crowd: [img]http://www.kanwa.com/free/2003/05/FLIR.jpg[/img] |
|
[red]I like how the effectiveness of the 'heat seeking bullet' was tested by firing it into a paper target. We all know that the bullseye is the hottest part of the target right?[/red] Wow, you really pay attention. A water balloon filled with 37 degree water was it's target along with some other crap. That is why the target was WARM. |
|
A heat seeking bullet would suck for battle feild combat in my opinion. 1. Say you wanted to shoot at some soldiers standing by a running truck. All the bullets would end up in the engine of the truck and not you targets. 2. Say you wanted to shoot past a freindly standing ahead and to the right/left of you. the bullet would steer it self to the freindly. 3. It would have to cost at least $2-$5 per round making it way too expensive to supply in great quanites. Even if it cost less then that there is no way it won't be more expensive than normal bullets and the "advatage" dosn't justify paying more. |
AR Sponsor