# Bolter Rounds



## Brother Emund (Apr 17, 2009)

Fook... the US Army has developed the first exploding Bolter Rounds!!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ullets-used-U-S-troops-Afghanistan-month.html


----------



## Midge913 (Oct 21, 2010)

Now that is effing cool!


----------



## GrizBe (May 12, 2010)

Nice.. except what they're suggesting won't work with a conventially proppelled bullet like they're using.


----------



## The Son of Horus (Dec 30, 2006)

Blackwater made the boltgun already about eight years ago-- the AA-12 tactical shotgun has a variety of alternative rounds, one of which is a 75-caliber, self-propelled mass-reactive shell.


----------



## shadowzarch (Mar 16, 2010)

and why exactly wont they work?


----------



## GrizBe (May 12, 2010)

Effective velocity, weight and ammo capacity to name a few.... For the size of the projectile and the bore, with a conventional propellant source its effective range is nowhere near what they're suggesting. Plus, pretty much its a programable grenade... Without a soldier capable of time-distance calculations, theres no way of programming it to teh exact timing needed to make it explode at the right point to get a guarenteed kill shot... that, and given the size of the projectile, you won't be able to cary very many of them... maybe 20 at most... given the weight and bulk its not effective to equip a soldier with them, when you can give them a normal rifle with armour peircing bullets at a third of the weight of what this will be, and many, many more rounds in multiple clips for alot cheaper...

Pretty much its a white elephant... theres already things far more effective at doing the same job they're suggesting for it.


----------



## Jezlad (Oct 14, 2006)

pffft, I don't need a boltgun, I've got a Donk!


A what?


----------



## ROT (Jun 25, 2010)

Jezlad said:


> pffft, I don't need a boltgun, I've got a Donk!
> 
> 
> A what?



He was just asking if we were allowed to eat these men.


----------



## Orochi (Jan 28, 2009)

Well, the first thing to be hit by it in real combat will no doubt be an English Service man. You know what the Yanks are like for killing the english by 'accident'.


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

Glorious weapon, but hideously expensive.


----------



## chromedog (Oct 31, 2007)

The Son of Horus said:


> Blackwater made the boltgun already about eight years ago-- the AA-12 tactical shotgun has a variety of alternative rounds, one of which is a 75-caliber, self-propelled mass-reactive shell.


Blackwater did NOT make the AA-12.
The AA-12 shotgun was developed in the early 1970s by Maxwell Atchison.


----------



## Raptor_00 (Mar 17, 2008)

GrizBe said:


> Effective velocity, weight and ammo capacity to name a few.... For the size of the projectile and the bore, with a conventional propellant source its effective range is nowhere near what they're suggesting. Plus, pretty much its a programable grenade... Without a soldier capable of time-distance calculations, theres no way of programming it to teh exact timing needed to make it explode at the right point to get a guarenteed kill shot... that, and given the size of the projectile, you won't be able to cary very many of them... maybe 20 at most... given the weight and bulk its not effective to equip a soldier with them, when you can give them a normal rifle with armour peircing bullets at a third of the weight of what this will be, and many, many more rounds in multiple clips for alot cheaper...
> 
> Pretty much its a white elephant... theres already things far more effective at doing the same job they're suggesting for it.


As for range calculations, there is a laser range finder built into the weapon. The soldier simply adds a few feet to the distance to any bunker or wall and BAM, bullet penetrates and then detonates.
And yes, conventional bullets won't work in the gun. Out of a platoon of soldiers only one would be equipped with this weapon and would use it similar to how a conventional grenade launcher was used back in Vietnam, before the advent of of combo assault rifle/grenade launchers like the M-16A2.
It's a niche weapon and you are right, other weapons can do similar jobs better. But, to take out a single insurgent behind a wall without calling up a heavier weapon like a mortar strike, this weapon will do the job well.
The cost will kill it because very few governments will spend that much on a single soldiers equipment.


----------



## GrizBe (May 12, 2010)

Thats kinda the point... the bullets pretty much a grenade with a timed fuse. Now, if thats set by computer, off the top of my head I can think of a dozen things that can go wrong with that... software failure, componant failure, distance miscalculation etc, fuse setting failure... not to mention misfires or jams. Strap that laser tech to a conventional rifle and you could do the same pretty easily for much cheaper... just show the stupidity of Us forces and throwing money at problems that don't really exist.


----------



## Raptor_00 (Mar 17, 2008)

GrizBe said:


> Thats kinda the point... the bullets pretty much a grenade with a timed fuse. Now, if thats set by computer, off the top of my head I can think of a dozen things that can go wrong with that... software failure, componant failure, distance miscalculation etc, fuse setting failure... not to mention misfires or jams. Strap that laser tech to a conventional rifle and you could do the same pretty easily for much cheaper... just show the stupidity of Us forces and throwing money at problems that don't really exist.


All adding the "laser tech" to a conventional rifle will do is give you the range. You still need the computer to tell a chip in the bullet when to explode. And a special gun that can then fire those special rounds. Sure many things could go wrong, but most will go wrong on the enemies side instead of the friendly side. Most large caliber bullets with fuzes must reach a certain rotational spin or distance from the barrel before they arm. This means sometimes it won't explode because the fuze didn't arm or armed to late. But it's still like getting hit with a lead bullet.
And most of these US manufacturers begin design of their weapons before the military picks up the contract. If the military likes the concept they throw some money the contractors way.
If money was no object a squad equipped with these would be able to throw down some impressive fire power. Turn off the chip and rain huge rounds that rip off limbs, turn the chip on and blow a group of insurgents hiding in a room to bits by shooting it through the wall.


----------



## Wax (Jan 6, 2010)

GrizBe said:


> Thats kinda the point... the bullets pretty much a grenade with a timed fuse. Now, if thats set by computer, off the top of my head I can think of a dozen things that can go wrong with that... software failure, componant failure, distance miscalculation etc, fuse setting failure... not to mention misfires or jams. Strap that laser tech to a conventional rifle and you could do the same pretty easily for much cheaper... just show the stupidity of Us forces and throwing money at problems that don't really exist.


Too be perfectly honest, I get the impression that you have no idea what you are talking about. What problem does not exist? The problem of enemies taking cover? That doesn't exist? Are you sure?

How exactly would an conventional weapon "do the same"? If someone is taking cover behind a concrete wall in a building, how will you kill them with a rifle? There have been many cases, especially in Iraq, of insurgent snipers hiding in abandoned buildings and engaging coalition forces from cover. The only way to root them out was to call in an airstrike and flatten the building; a gross amount of over-kill for one target, if you ask me.

Yes, things can go wrong with a weapon. If can misfire or jam. An explosive can fail to detonate. Shit happens. You clear the jam, you eject the misfired round or simply fire again in the case of a non-detonation.

The round that this weapon will fire is not a "grenade with a timed fuse", that is a gross misrepresentation. It is a high explosive projectile with a radio-controlled chip in it. There is no fuse, the projectile simply arms when it is fired (most likely after traveling a minimum distance, a component already perfected in modern grenade launchers), and then detonates when it receives a signal from the weapon that fired it.

As for range miscalculations: Have you ever used a laser range-finder? Do you understand how they work? Anything can have an error, but they aren't exactly considered failure-prone technology.

Once again, you have no idea what you are talking about. The only thing I'm getting from your post is that you have a bone to pick with the US (The 'S' is capitalized by the way). Also, it's a magazine, not a clip and your misuse of ellipses has given me a headache (seriously, you're from the UK. You guys spawned our wonderful language, I would expect you to use it correctly). 

In conclusion, you are a cad and I question your mothers honor. Good day sir!



Raptor_00 said:


> turn the chip on and blow a group of insurgents hiding in a room to bits by shooting it through the wall.


Just for clarification, you don't shoot this weapon through a wall. You fire the projectile through a window and it detonates after it has gone past the wall. The whole point is to reach targets in cover when you are unable to shoot _through_ the cover.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

Those Germans sure know how to make flashy guns, ultimately if its to deal with people hiding behind walls, they will just look for better cover or more inventive ways to kill soldiers when this gets deployed.


----------



## Unforgiven302 (Oct 20, 2008)

Here is a true "bolter" type gun. Rocket propelled rounds. Gyrojet.






The AA-12 is only a shotgun, a nasty full auto beast, but a shotgun none-the-less.






Here is th XM-25 from a news report. Shows it in action. Pretty cool. 






If you are interested in weapons and military "toys" I would recommend the TV show "Future Weapons." Has all sorts of cool new killy toys being displayed and fired off.


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

"Weapon hailed as a game-changer that can fire up and over barriers and down into trenches."
OMG WALLHACKS!


----------



## GrizBe (May 12, 2010)

*Sigh* Time to smack down an idiot...



Wax_Assassin said:


> Too be perfectly honest, I get the impression that you have no idea what you are talking about. What problem does not exist? The problem of enemies taking cover? That doesn't exist? Are you sure?


The point is with current conventional weapons, enemies already can't take cover. Special forces deal with this with grenades or simply using rounds that can punch through over. You do realise that for instance, a basic round fired from an AK-47 can punch through a brick wall and still be lethal on the other side? And the Ak-47 does not have the stopping power of alot of rifles already in use.



> How exactly would an conventional weapon "do the same"? If someone is taking cover behind a concrete wall in a building, how will you kill them with a rifle? There have been many cases, especially in Iraq, of insurgent snipers hiding in abandoned buildings and engaging coalition forces from cover. The only way to root them out was to call in an airstrike and flatten the building; a gross amount of over-kill for one target, if you ask me.


See above. And actualy, that was US forces that did that. UK forces simply chuck a grendade through the window, or us a wall busting explosive to sneak in the back and take them out that way.



> The round that this weapon will fire is not a "grenade with a timed fuse", that is a gross misrepresentation. It is a high explosive projectile with a radio-controlled chip in it. There is no fuse, the projectile simply arms when it is fired (most likely after traveling a minimum distance, a component already perfected in modern grenade launchers), and then detonates when it receives a signal from the weapon that fired it.


Soo.. basically a grenade, since thats a high explosive round, with a timer in the shape of a chip? Thats a grenade with a timed fuse dumbass. Plus, as a radio signal, its extremely easy to jam making it worthless if it can't be detonated... unlike a conventional grenade or high explosive round.



> As for range miscalculations: Have you ever used a laser range-finder? Do you understand how they work? Anything can have an error, but they aren't exactly considered failure-prone technology.


Yes I have actually, and I know how they work. They're not fool proof. 



> Once again, you have no idea what you are talking about. The only thing I'm getting from your post is that you have a bone to pick with the US (The 'S' is capitalized by the way). Also, it's a magazine, not a clip and your misuse of ellipses has given me a headache (seriously, you're from the UK. You guys spawned our wonderful language, I would expect you to use it correctly).


Clearly, your the one with no actual clue what your talking about. Have you friends in the military, have you served in the military, do you know how a bullet works? Obviously not. And to insult a language... and then call it yours... Moron. You've just insulted yourself.



> Just for clarification, you don't shoot this weapon through a wall. You fire the projectile through a window and it detonates after it has gone past the wall. The whole point is to reach targets in cover when you are unable to shoot _through_ the cover.


Hence why its pointless when you can just fire a grenade through said same window, or use the high explosive to take out the wall... removing the cover and killing the target behind it.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

I would be more impressed if it could shoot fully auto with a huge box magazine,as it is though its just a grenade launcher for those who cant shoot for toffee.


----------



## GrizBe (May 12, 2010)

Pretty much... anyone with half an ounce of skill could do the same with a conventional launcher.... Yet again it just shows the US military as a bunch of gun ho, overfunded idiots.


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

Well to be fair GrizBe, this would have great application in certain situations.
Picture this, enemy stronghold, they know you're there, they're shooting at you; you can't get close enough to simply toss a grenade in the window, or plant charges, or what have you.
Perhaps you're at such a range that firing grenades is out of the question, too far away, too many obstacles making the required arc an impossibility.
In this situation, the weapon would be perfect; fire it like a rifle, blow dudes up like a small grenade, and shrapnel / deafen the hell out of them while you're at it.


----------



## GrizBe (May 12, 2010)

True... but in that case, why not just use a bazooka? That and again, the weapon possibly wouldn't work, with too many obsticles in the way to make the required arc possible, how is the laser range finder going to be able to lock on clearly?

I'm not saying its without uses, but the chances of a situation like that are so small, a conventional weapon would be able to carry it out, plus a range of other roles too.

Also, I'll point out something like this can be a hell of a bad idea... Anyone remember the recent 'rescue' of a British aid worker by American Special Forces?  They threw in a grenade to supposidly clear out the enemy, but ended up killing the hostage with the same grenade. Trying the same with this weapon could result in similar unneeded deaths.

And before anyone argues that it was a bomb vest that did it, do a little research, it was captured on the headcam video of one of the special forces of the grenade being throw and killing her, not a bomb vest.


----------



## Arkeoptrix (Oct 8, 2010)

War. War never changes...


----------



## GrizBe (May 12, 2010)

Lol.... someone build me a Gauss Rifle... Then I'll be impressed.


----------



## WoRLoKKeD (Apr 1, 2008)

The Son of Horus said:


> Blackwater made the boltgun already about eight years ago-- the AA-12 tactical shotgun has a variety of alternative rounds, one of which is a 75-caliber, self-propelled mass-reactive shell.


From memory, they didn't develop it but picked up the company who did years back.

And the 'bolter' round? That one's a Brit invention. Because we get bored when it's raining 26 hours a day.


----------



## Brother Emund (Apr 17, 2009)

*GrizBe:* Wow, do they still use bazooka's in the military.. I thought anti-tank technology would have moved on by now!! :grin:


----------



## the-ad-man (Jan 22, 2010)

Arkeoptrix said:


> War. War never changes...


depends, are you on ron pearlman's side, or david hayter's?

ron: war, war never changes

davind: war, war has changed


----------



## GrizBe (May 12, 2010)

Brother Emund said:


> *GrizBe:* Wow, do they still use bazooka's in the military.. I thought anti-tank technology would have moved on by now!! :grin:


Ehh... missle launcher, RPG... whatever you want to call it, you know what I meant


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

Brother Emund said:


> *GrizBe:* Wow, do they still use bazooka's in the military.. I thought anti-tank technology would have moved on by now!! :grin:


the US millitary still use Bazooka's, there current model is the m136 light multipurpose weapon, which is in essence an RPG or AT weapon , a bazooka is a simple rocket propelled grenade launcher. To be honest i cant see GI joe going in to battle with his snazzy xm25 and leaving a genuinely useful weapon like the m136 behind, because its like comparing the effectiveness of a .22 rifle with a barrett 50cal, both will kill a man, one however will put a window in him.


----------



## comrade (Jun 30, 2008)

GrizBe said:


> Plus, pretty much its a programable grenade... Without a soldier capable of time-distance calculations, theres no way of programming it to teh exact timing needed to make it explode at the right point to get a guarenteed kill shot


Easy Fix, laser range finder on rifle connected to a small computer which programs each round as it exits to explode at distance targeted when fired, even if it misses the target due to dodging, it would cause shrapnel wounds and almost ensure the target is out of commission, not to mention concussive damage from being close to the explosion.

Cost though... yeah never going to happen, way to expensive.

_if anyone from the company is reading this, I will only ask to recieve a small portion of money for creating the idea up for you ( a measly 100,000) . My high school diploma pulling out for me..... oh wait.... no maybe it was the half decade of working with weapons technology that did that_


----------



## Capt.Al'rahhem (Jan 24, 2009)

GrizBe said:


> Lol.... someone build me a Gauss Rifle... Then I'll be impressed.


The US Navy already has!


----------



## GrizBe (May 12, 2010)

I'd explain the physics, but a gauss rifle and a rail gun work on different principles, even though both are in effect, magneticlaly propelled projectile weapons.

That and curretly a rail gun needs a stupid ammount of power to fire it. I wan't something human transportable.


----------



## Wax (Jan 6, 2010)

GrizBe said:


> *Sigh* Time to smack down an idiot...
> Ohhh, this should be good! :laugh:
> 
> The point is with current conventional weapons, enemies already can't take cover. Special forces deal with this with grenades or simply using rounds that can punch through over. You do realise that for instance, a basic round fired from an AK-47 can punch through a brick wall and still be lethal on the other side? And the Ak-47 does not have the stopping power of alot of rifles already in use.
> ...





GrizBe said:


> Pretty much... anyone with half an ounce of skill could do the same with a conventional launcher.... Yet again it just shows the US military as a bunch of gun ho, overfunded idiots.
> Again with the hate. What happened to make you so mad, man? Did some American GI steal your girl? You sound really butthurt.





GrizBe said:


> True... but in that case, why not just use a bazooka? That and again, the weapon possibly wouldn't work, with too many obsticles in the way to make the required arc possible, how is the laser range finder going to be able to lock on clearly?
> Why would you use a dedicated anti-tank weapon to take out a soft target? Also there is the issue of available ammo. A given squad will have a very limited number of M136s (which are single fire weapons) on hand. While a XM-25 gunner and his squad could carry a relatively large amount of 25mm rounds. We can also look at the cost of said projectiles. The OP article lists the XM-25's round as costing aprox. $24. A single M136 unit costs $1,480. With some quick math we can discover that the "bazooka" is 60 times more expensive to use. Holy Hajis Batman!
> 
> I'm not saying its without uses, but the chances of a situation like that are so small, a conventional weapon would be able to carry it out, plus a range of other roles too.
> ...


Alright, where was that smack down you were talking about? :aggressive: Haha!



comrade said:


> Easy Fix, laser range finder on rifle connected to a small computer which programs each round as it exits to explode at distance targeted when fired, even if it misses the target due to dodging, it would cause shrapnel wounds and almost ensure the target is out of commission, not to mention concussive damage from being close to the explosion.
> 
> Cost though... yeah never going to happen, way to expensive.


Um... that is already how the weapon works, except the range-finder simply sends the signal to detonate when the round is at the target, not before.


----------



## GrizBe (May 12, 2010)

Wax_Assassin said:


> Alright, where was that smack down you were talking about? :aggressive: Haha!


Pretty much you just gave it yourself by proving what a tool you are for dragging out something so long past the point that anyone really cares anymore. 

In the end, we disagree on its usefullness, and here you are still trying to insult me and make out like your better then everyone else like your opinion is better or more valid then anyone elses. It isn't.


----------



## Alsojames (Oct 25, 2010)

That railgun is sweet, but lets see them make a smaller, more portable version!


----------



## comrade (Jun 30, 2008)

Wax_Assassin said:


> Um... that is already how the weapon works, except the range-finder simply sends the signal to detonate when the round is at the target, not before.


how... very odd.... the chance of the target moving and causing the laser to be unadjusted is.... high, especially against a moving target. Having the round burst upon where the target was once it was fired would be, in my opinion more effective,

Not to mention easier to have them pre programmed then have each equipped to recieve constant signals.


----------



## GrizBe (May 12, 2010)

You know, i've just thought of another flaw... the rangefinder can only pick out the distance to a target, or, the target, then a meter past it... 

In other words, you have to aim at the wall, then re-aim the rifle to fire past it, otherwise the range you've set the grenade to will be wrong. This wastes valuable time as you mess about trying to make sure that your shot is going to go where you want it to... Plus, as mentioned, the target can move... something thats going to explode short of them, if they decide to run isn't an effective weapon. 

Also with that, the firing beyond... now, i'm no expert, but when you've got a projectile that is essentially a high explosive warhead, propelled by a convential 'bullet' propellant... unless its a shaped charge, most of that force is going to fire forwards, meaning if its detonating 3 feet past a target, the likelyhood of a lethal shot is reduced.


----------



## search116 (Aug 9, 2010)

I can see a bolter jamming then blammo shrapnel every where.


----------



## comrade (Jun 30, 2008)

GrizBe said:


> You know, i've just thought of another flaw... the rangefinder can only pick out the distance to a target, or, the target, then a meter past it...
> 
> In other words, you have to aim at the wall, then re-aim the rifle to fire past it, otherwise the range you've set the grenade to will be wrong. This wastes valuable time as you mess about trying to make sure that your shot is going to go where you want it to... Plus, as mentioned, the target can move... something thats going to explode short of them, if they decide to run isn't an effective weapon.
> 
> Also with that, the firing beyond... now, i'm no expert, but when you've got a projectile that is essentially a high explosive warhead, propelled by a convential 'bullet' propellant... unless its a shaped charge, most of that force is going to fire forwards, meaning if its detonating 3 feet past a target, the likelyhood of a lethal shot is reduced.


true, normally the momentum of the round should propel it forward,

But the explosion would create a counter to the momentum and shrapnel (counting on the eplosive being in the core of the projectile) would head in all directions, so if its forward, behind, or beside the target, the target should be hit with shrapnel, and at the very very least, be almost deaf. Though the shrapnel heading forward would be moving extremely fast, seeing as how it now has the original momentum + blast moving it in the same direction.

Thats why I would think a round would be pre-programmed by the range finder before firing, so no matter where the target is, the target should still be damaged.


----------



## Raptor_00 (Mar 17, 2008)

search116 said:


> I can see a bolter jamming then blammo shrapnel every where.


This wouldn't happen if the rounds are designed similar to current aircraft 20/30mm rounds (as I believe they are from their description).
After the round leaves the barrel, the spin basically aligns the fuze in the round after a certain distance. If the correct spin or distance is not reached the fuze will not arm and can there for, not explode.


----------



## Raptor_00 (Mar 17, 2008)

GrizBe said:


> You know, i've just thought of another flaw... the rangefinder can only pick out the distance to a target, or, the target, then a meter past it...
> 
> In other words, you have to aim at the wall, then re-aim the rifle to fire past it, otherwise the range you've set the grenade to will be wrong. This wastes valuable time as you mess about trying to make sure that your shot is going to go where you want it to... Plus, as mentioned, the target can move... something thats going to explode short of them, if they decide to run isn't an effective weapon.
> 
> Also with that, the firing beyond... now, i'm no expert, but when you've got a projectile that is essentially a high explosive warhead, propelled by a convential 'bullet' propellant... unless its a shaped charge, most of that force is going to fire forwards, meaning if its detonating 3 feet past a target, the likelyhood of a lethal shot is reduced.


Well, like everything you "army proof" it. You limit the amount of distance it explodes after the target. No remeasuring.
You take the range (takes 2 seconds)
Press a button on the gun (selection 1 is 1 foot for drywall wall, selection 2 is 3 feet for concrete barricades, selection 3 is 6 foot for car)
Pull trigger.

If the target moves the blast may sill frag them out. The concussion may sill knock them down. Or they run in the open and the rest of the squad shoots them. One way or another they aren't shooting at you from cover anymore.

As for the explosion going forward. No, when a munition explodes the force will spread equally in every direction through the path of least resistance. An believe me, the explosion only needs to be close.
Never hear the phrase "close only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades"?


----------



## comrade (Jun 30, 2008)

Raptor_00 said:


> Never hear the phrase "close only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades"?


forgot one, and nuclear weapons.


----------



## Raptor_00 (Mar 17, 2008)

comrade said:


> forgot one, and nuclear weapons.


lol, I stand corrected.


----------



## Cyklown (Feb 8, 2010)

Gauss rifles are cute, but in terms of feasibility they're about as doable as the SDI defense project was.

Railguns aren't manportable, sure, but they're a solid technology that, if implemented would actually work better than existing technology without too many downsides.

The trick is... the Navy plans on putting them on ships, not on boats or in people's hands.

Right now, most of the power a ship uses goes to it's engine, and then the other systems fritter away resources. A nuclear plant (or other power plant) could charge up the capacitor on a railgun and then go back to pushing the ship along, and the range and logistics of ammo versus current cannons would make life easier. At least... that's what popsci circa 3+ years ago was claiming.


----------



## Raptor_00 (Mar 17, 2008)

Cyklown said:


> Gauss rifles are cute, but in terms of feasibility they're about as doable as the SDI defense project was.
> 
> Railguns aren't manportable, sure, but they're a solid technology that, if implemented would actually work better than existing technology without too many downsides.
> 
> ...


Size is the greatest problem...but, size was once the problem with computers too. They use to take up rooms and had as much processing power as a solar calculator.
With time and tech, these weapons will shrink in size. It'll just take the other technologies to get to the right levels and the right person to come around and put it all together and you'll have a railgun you can buy at walmart.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

Railgun's are already present and mounted on a ship. Fire's the equivalent of a cluster bomb 40 miles at Mach 8 or something silly like that.

Myself? I'll settle for a nice 30mm round from an Apache and a C8 Carbine in my mits, thankee.


----------



## Wax (Jan 6, 2010)

GrizBe said:


> Pretty much you just gave it yourself by proving what a tool you are for dragging out something so long past the point that anyone really cares anymore.
> 
> In the end, we disagree on its usefullness, and here you are still trying to insult me and make out like your better then everyone else like your opinion is better or more valid then anyone elses. It isn't.


Well, you obviously care enough to still be here, arguing your point. The only problem is, your argument has no legs to stand on, so you resort to ad hominem attacks in an effort to divert the conversation away from the discussion you are so clearly losing. Attacking ones opponent rather than the opponent's argument is the first sign that you have nothing more to say, and thus have failed. 

I wouldn't really say we disagree on its usefulness. You said it was a stupid weapon and proceeded to bash the US military. I refuted your fallacious statements and you came back with more incorrect statements and more bashing, both of myself and my country's armed forces. Now that I have refuted you again and you must resort to name calling and insults. This thread is still getting posts, people obviously are still talking about it. You are mad, deal with it or come back with a legitimate argument against this weapon system. I'll even give you a little preview: You won't come back with anything other than personal attacks and easily refutable drivel.



GrizBe said:


> You know, i've just thought of another flaw... the rangefinder can only pick out the distance to a target, or, the target, then a meter past it...
> 
> In other words, you have to aim at the wall, then re-aim the rifle to fire past it, otherwise the range you've set the grenade to will be wrong. This wastes valuable time as you mess about trying to make sure that your shot is going to go where you want it to... Plus, as mentioned, the target can move... something thats going to explode short of them, if they decide to run isn't an effective weapon.
> 
> Also with that, the firing beyond... now, i'm no expert, but when you've got a projectile that is essentially a high explosive warhead, propelled by a convential 'bullet' propellant... unless its a shaped charge, most of that force is going to fire forwards, meaning if its detonating 3 feet past a target, the likelyhood of a lethal shot is reduced.


Ah, see! Here you are continuing to argue. Guess we're not so "long past the point that anyone really cares anymore." are we? Anyway, how much time do you think it takes to press a button once? Because that is how long it takes to add 1 meter to the range after lasing the side of the building to get the initial range. There is no time spent messing around. Lase target, press button one to three times, aim at window/above fortification, fire. That's it.

As for exploding short of them: if you have forced the target out of cover, the weapon has already done its job. The rest of the unit can kill them with their rifles or safely advance.

As for exploding past the target: this is a grenade, the whole point is that it doesn't have to be right next to the target when it goes off. Modern grenades have an effective radius of 15 meters, so 3 feet past a target is nothing, everything in the room will be swiss cheese.

Here are two short (I don't want to hurt your attention span (figure if we're going to be using personal attacks it should go both ways)) videos. 



 notice how he says soldiers can't generally drill through the walls of houses with their conventional weapons. 



 showing a high-speed cam shot of the frag going off.

Bottom line, name another weapon system that can do what this one is supposed to do. That's right, you can't.


----------



## the-ad-man (Jan 22, 2010)

now they need to make it full auto and i'd get one off amazon


----------



## Cyklown (Feb 8, 2010)

Raptor_00 said:


> Size is the greatest problem...but, size was once the problem with computers too. They use to take up rooms and had as much processing power as a solar calculator.
> With time and tech, these weapons will shrink in size. It'll just take the other technologies to get to the right levels and the right person to come around and put it all together and you'll have a railgun you can buy at walmart.


Except for the reasons why we have trouble minaturizing one but not the other are quite different.

With computers the difficulty was designing stuff so small. Luckily with computers getting better our proccessing power we can devote to the problem keeps growing, so now heat is our main concern.

With a railgun your issues are capacitors, recoil and power feed. Someday we may have hiking-backpack sized nuclear reactors, but that's a ways off, especially since we don't like researching nuclear stuff so much these days.

Solid chemical propellant still has the best force/mass ratio, no matter how inefficient and wasteful the external combustion engine may be.

The Navy doesn't have to worry about it, because they're already carrying around MASSIVE power generator to power their ships. Almost all of the power generated by a ship goes to the engines. As such, it's just a matter of diverting that power for an extremely short period of time. With the mass of the ship and the spare room for things like capacitors if you only need to carry ferrous slugs rather than shells around, it makes perfect sense.






As for advances in smallarms technology: This is cool, and I can see them being as basic as SAWs and heavier-caliber rifles in military units. I mean, Vietnam saw the autoshotgun being distributed to units to deal with cover issues, right? But! In terms of an actual change in the basic infantry kit I expect the G11 to be the blueprint of the future. Did it have problems? Sure. But those problems would be fixed by electrical ignition of rounds rather than concusive/heat based. Aside from it's cookoff issue (which was, granted, a doozy), the main reason it failed was that the last army trials that they held to replace the M16 were rigged against the possibility of anything replacing the M16.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

Wax_Assassin said:


> Bottom line, name another weapon system that can do what this one is supposed to do. That's right, you can't.


Bushmaster and M230.


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

GrizBe said:


> And before anyone argues that it was a bomb vest that did it, do a little research, it was captured on the headcam video of one of the special forces of the grenade being throw and killing her, not a bomb vest.


......How the fuck could a bomb vest have killed her??


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

Really, Winterous?


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

Vaz said:


> Really, Winterous?


Yes, really.
What, did someone throw it at her?
Was it on fire?

It doesn't really make much sense.


----------



## Wax (Jan 6, 2010)

Winterous said:


> ......How the fuck could a bomb vest have killed her??


If they put it on her and remote detonated it when they were attacked, or if one of her captors had been wearing one and detonated it next to her, which I believe is what the first story was. Unfortunately this was not the case, she was killed by one of the solders trying to rescue her.



Vaz said:


> Bushmaster and M230.


Haha, you've got me there, but you know what I meant. Those are not man portable, squad level weapons.


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

Wax_Assassin said:


> If they put it on her and remote detonated it when they were attacked, or if one of her captors had been wearing one and detonated it next to her, which I believe is what the first story was. Unfortunately this was not the case, she was killed by one of the solders trying to rescue her.


BAHAHAHAHHA!
Oh man, I'm dumb sometimes.
I interpreted 'bomb vest' as in 'bomb PROTECTION vest' :laugh:


----------



## the-ad-man (Jan 22, 2010)

i would say this gun reminds me more of a small portable thunderfire cannon :/

think about it, its got the airburst shot down! surface detonation is not unplausable!
stick 4 of them together and youve got a thunderfire cannon! haha


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

Wax_Assassin said:


> Haha, you've got me there, but you know what I meant. Those are not man portable, squad level weapons.


Who needs a 19mm round when you have a 30mm round capable of firing from over 4K away? =D


Winterous said:


> BAHAHAHAHHA!
> Oh man, I'm dumb sometimes.
> I interpreted 'bomb vest' as in 'bomb PROTECTION vest' :laugh:


Oh I getchoo. Mmmbad.


----------



## moshpiler (Apr 16, 2009)

you people discuss this as if it's a gun on cod or halo. get real people, these things kill people and, at this point, the only gain is more money in fat pockets of company's that sell the weapons. and as far as the actual argument goes, it doesn't matter how effective a weapon is, the same companies that designed the gun will make something to counter it (like a special radio frequency jammer, duh, didn't anyone think of that?) and sell it to the other side. do you think that these companies really care about freedom or justice? if wars continue, they get more money and guess what, they LIKE MONEY. no one is going to make a gun that can effectively end these wars cause then they'd be out of business!


----------



## Brother Emund (Apr 17, 2009)

GrizBe said:


> Ehh... missle launcher, RPG... whatever you want to call it, you know what I meant


Yeah mate, I was extracting the Michael... however, it would appear that the US military still use Bazooka's according to comments made after yours!!


----------



## shas'o Thraka (Jan 4, 2010)

But it says Daily mail....

And they said psychic powers exist.....


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

moshpiler said:


> you people discuss this as if it's a gun on cod or halo. get real people, these things kill people and, at this point, the only gain is more money in fat pockets of company's that sell the weapons.


Or, don't be a dick, and realise that some of us these guys actually use them, and that in this particular example, it's "only real gain" is that we don't lose any more mates who happen to draw the short straw as they open a rigged door to initiate room clearance.



> and as far as the actual argument goes, it doesn't matter how effective a weapon is, the same companies that designed the gun will make something to counter it (like a special radio frequency jammer, duh, didn't anyone think of that?) and sell it to the other side.


Actually, it fucking well does. If it makes somebody else rich but gets every single one of the guys we go on ops back to their girlfriend, or children, then I'm a happy bunny.



> do you think that these companies really care about freedom or justice? if wars continue, they get more money and guess what, they LIKE MONEY. no one is going to make a gun that can effectively end these wars cause then they'd be out of business!


Actually, they already have. I'm not sure where you've been for the last 70 years, but it's quite prevalent in many different areas.

As to the companies? There's been worse things than legally cashing in on a whole in the market. Because I don't particularly want to go pegging around Afghanistan with my Plate Armour and Excalibur against some ******* with some Russian antiquity.


----------



## moshpiler (Apr 16, 2009)

sorry but if your losing mates to a war that they "voluntarily" joined then i can't have much sympathy if they get injured/die. my cousin is in the australian army, wants to be assigned to iraq,and if something happened to him i would obviously be unimaginably sad but i wouldn't be able to blame the iraqi insurgents or the companies that make the weapons or even the aussie government/army for it. the only person he can blame is himself and i would consider him an idiot if he did blame someone else. they all know full well what they're getting into, if they don't want a significantly increased chance of dying or getting injured then they should find another job. further, nothing will ever reduce casualties to 0% and the less casualties one side suffers the more the other does. where do you think insurgents get their weapons from? they don't grow on trees y'know. i don't think that it's much of a stretch of the mind to imagine that a company that makes a new high-tech gun could also make a counter should their gun prove too effective. arms dealers and military suppliers are the ones lobbying for war they're one of the main reasons "mates" are dying. lastly, if you were referring to nuclear weapons previously then you must be quite the sadist to think that they are, these days, a good way to finish a war


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

Meet me in the fucking street.


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

moshpiler said:


> sorry but if your losing mates to a war that they "voluntarily" joined then i can't have much sympathy if they get injured/die.


.................................................
Really?
These people sign up to do a (fundamentally) good thing: bring peace to the world, and fight for their country.
Yes, death and / or injury is an occupational hazard, but everything that can be done to make their job safer is definitely a good thing.

What you just said is basically, you don't have any sympathy for a police officer who gets shot while trying to make the world a better place.

*edit*
Your edit-fu is strong.

You really think that a military organisation like the US army would actually BUY a weapon if it was so easily stopped by a company-produced countermeasure?
For a start, this weapon was MADE by US companies, FOR the US army; this is the sort of technology they are not going to sell to other countries, unless they really trust them.

As I said above, human life is important; it isn't the MOST important thing, but it's pretty fucking high up.
Just about anything we can produce that will help in a war effort, and save human lives, is a damn good investment right off the bat.


----------



## moshpiler (Apr 16, 2009)

war is different. a police officer doesn't sign up to the job knowing that his chances of dying just went up 50% or whatever and i can see that you don't live LA or something like that where you can say that there is an increased chance of something bad happening to them and i applaud the cops who sign up for that shit. maybe sympathy wasn't the right word but i remain with my opinion that if you go, voluntarily, to war and something happens then you really can't blame anyone but yourself.

"quote"You really think that a military organisation like the US army would actually BUY a weapon if it was so easily stopped by a company-produced countermeasure?
For a start, this weapon was MADE by US companies, FOR the US army; this is the sort of technology they are not going to sell to other countries, unless they really trust them.""

using sound judgment, can you really say that the weapons industry cares who they get they're money from? if one company makes a weapon that is, like the gun the thread is about, very effective and another company sees an opportunity to manufacture a countermeasure to sell to the other side will they? the scary thing is that the answer depends on whether doing so will produce good revenue or whether they'll get caught if it's an american-based company etc. companies (big ones not aunt marie's coffee shop) aren't people with emotions, moral compass or regret. top priority is making money, the bottom line, believing anything else is naive. i'm not saying that the soldiers are doing something wrong but i do believe that war is wrong. in my opinion, under no condition is war justifiable. it might be necessary (in some VERY limited situations) but it ain't right. violence begets violence. and before i get slammed by people that are in/have been in the military i.e. "how would you know" i'll let you know that i have been in the army, it's compulsory here, and i think, again in my PERSONAL opinion, that it's a fascist organisation (strictly hierarchical) that promotes racism, violence and stupidity. note i am talking about the army i served in, not any other countries'.


----------



## moshpiler (Apr 16, 2009)

"quote"As I said above, human life is important; it isn't the MOST important thing, but it's pretty fucking high up.
Just about anything we can produce that will help in a war effort, and save human lives, is a damn good investment right off the bat.""

yeah but which nationalities human lives? if it's saving the lives of one side then it's killing people on the other side. it's war, it's wrong and no argument will prove otherwise

"quote"Meet me in the fucking street.""

well this just elaborates your personality fantastically


----------



## comrade (Jun 30, 2008)

I didn't even know it was possible to have negative rep.

Personally, I am not thinking in Terms of CoD or Halo. I am thinking in actual raw killing potential... actuall not killing potential, more like taking the target out of commission.

And before its said, yes, I do know sort of what I'm talking about, I'm an ex Naval Master at Arms. I'm not some video gaming person not understanding the damage a weapon like this would cause. I fully know what something like this would do.

We are having a conversation about a weapon that can kill people. 

Next we will talk about other things that kill people, like fast food, being overweight, driving.

and we can even move onto how its not just the weapon industry that acts like that, ALL business act like that. It exists to make money. psshhh..... I just thought of 'The Non-profit company of weaponry and explosives' I loled 

And I am sorry your military experience is that shitty. I really am. I enjoyed my time in the service, course you gotta learn to take insults, and dish it back out, common in any high stress environment really. Course mine is an all voluntary armed forces.

War has purpose, don't even pretend it doesn't. Without war the strong would always prevail. With war, the weak can at least give the powerful a bloody nose and make it think twice (see for example: Iraq ,Afghanistan, not biased just saying) 

Well... I guess we could all just be spineless shits, and listen to the whims of the politically connected and pretty much just be passive little slaves.

Shitty, yes. People are not always nice people. And for some reason, the wrong type of people want power.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

I've actually not met anyone as fucking dense as you, moshpiler.

Seriously - I've gotten more out of talking to plyboard.


----------



## Flayed 0ne (Aug 29, 2010)

@mosh....weapons dont make wars...people do...there can be no such thing as a "weapon" to "end" wars...its the crazy fucks who come up with these convoluted money trails to one company trying to "out kill" another for the enjoyment of some unseen council keeping tabs on the lives thier weapons end that perpetuate this myth...if there were no guns...no missles...no bombs...no pointed sticks even!!...people would still be kicking the shit out of each other...its human nature...war...has always...and WILL always exist...despite the constant whining and self righteous bleating of bleeding heart liberals...

:goodpost:....NOT!


----------



## moshpiler (Apr 16, 2009)

@ comrade yeah well the main reason it was shit was because i couldn't dish it back out because i was, basically, a conscript. didn't even use a gun. and it may just be me but i could never even comprehend killing someone, heck i've never even _hit_ anyone!

@ vaz you're hardly proving it are you. so because i'm so thick, why don't you explain exactly why i'm wrong, eh?

edit @ flayed one jeez sorry i think killing people is wrong. you're right, people will never stop fighting and it would be unnatural if they did (watch equilibrium if you haven't already - great movie). on the other hand, no bar fight will ever result in the deaths of millions


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

moshpiler said:


> @ comrade yeah well the main reason it was shit was because i couldn't dish it back out because i was, basically, a conscript. didn't even use a gun. and it may just be me but i could never even comprehend killing someone, heck i've never even _hit anyone!_


_
Bully for you. You got hit with the shit stick. You're fucking alive, so be grateful, and thank fuck that you've got volunteers such as ourselves who are both motivated and a damn site more skilled and intelligent meaning you can be stuck being a remf in some garrison to look pretty and respectable.

I don't want to kill anyone. I don't join up thinking "yeah, gonna kill some ******* fuck." I like the feeling of running rambo in a field caked in mud shooting at shit, yeah, adrenalines a sick drug. But when you realise that that same action you enjoy can kill you, you really do thank the son, father, and holy fucking toast that you can still sit and smell the flowers.

As to hitting someone - well, when someone's being so offensive to everything that you stand for - both people dead and alive (are you forgetting the 2 Billion deaths from the last 100 years of those who volunteered?), there's times when it's damn satisfying. And I'd gladly spend the night in the brig when something like that comes up.




@ vaz you're hardly proving it are you. so because i'm so thick, why don't you explain exactly why i'm wrong, eh?

Click to expand...

I don't know where to start, if I'm honest. I might just have to help you learn your timestable and the alphabet, given by the level of either, I'm not sure if it's "oh fuck, i'm wrong, but I can't be seen to give in", or just pure retardness.



_


----------



## chromedog (Oct 31, 2007)

WoRLoKKeD said:


> From memory, they didn't develop it but picked up the company who did years back.
> 
> And the 'bolter' round? That one's a Brit invention. Because we get bored when it's raining 26 hours a day.


Precisely as I said a page or so earlier.


chromedog said:


> Blackwater did NOT make the AA-12.
> The AA-12 shotgun was developed in the early 1970s by Maxwell Atchison.


1973 to be precise. The gun was old news in the late 80s when it was used in the Cyberpunk rpg. A very nasty full auto shotgun.
That the USAS-12 was developed from.

Blackwater acquired the company.
They may now OWN the gun design, but they did not invent it.


----------



## Flayed 0ne (Aug 29, 2010)

killing...is a blanket statement...murder and self defense are very diffrent concepts...wouldnt you agree?...no matter how passive you are...some deaths are deserved...

...that would be one hell of a bar fight...but if Putin and Lil' Kim (Jong-il) were out havin a beer and one of em took a swing on the other...oooooh boy!...thered be trouble in paradise!...more than a million times over...


----------



## moshpiler (Apr 16, 2009)

"""Bully for you. You got hit with the shit stick. You're fucking alive, so be grateful, and thank fuck that you've got volunteers such as ourselves who are both motivated and a damn site more skilled and intelligent meaning you can be stuck being a remf in some garrison to look pretty and respectable."""

obviously you assume that because you're in the army you understand how all military establishments work. everybody man in my country has to do army service, so don't think i'm lamenting my luck, i had to go and i accepted that. that doesn't mean i had to like it or agree with it. and where i live do you really think i feel safe because america invaded afganistan and iraq. even when i was in the army i didn't care because i knew they couldn't just send me over there they'd have to send everyone and then we'd all be fucked. so no, as far as my own personal safety goes volenteers into iraq made it worse cause since then 4 or 5 terrorist organisations have sprung up here and since saddam didn't have any WMD's after all we weren't really threatened by them.

"""I don't want to kill anyone. I don't join up thinking "yeah, gonna kill some ******* fuck." I like the feeling of running rambo in a field caked in mud shooting at shit, yeah, adrenalines a sick drug. But when you realise that that same action you enjoy can kill you, you really do thank the son, father, and holy fucking toast that you can still sit and smell the flowers."""

same as skydiving, someone who does it knows it's more hazardous than other sports or hobbies likes football, chess or even warhammer, but you can't say he didn't know that something shitty could happen. i wasn't disrespecting soldiers or saying that what they do holds no honour. some fight for their countries others for their ideals but, as long as they know what they're getting into and it's their choice they can't say that it's not, ultimately, their decision that got them in a situation where they could get killed. and i'm not talking about people who fought or fight as the only option.

"""As to hitting someone - well, when someone's being so offensive to everything that you stand for - both people dead and alive (are you forgetting the 2 Billion deaths from the last 100 years of those who volunteered?), there's times when it's damn satisfying. And I'd gladly spend the night in the brig when something like that comes up."""

well that's how you would react. if i came off as offensive then i really am sorry, it's just that this subject is a very sensitive one for me and i tend to relate my views very strongly sometimes. and please don't think that i'm some kind pansy that avoids trouble like the plague. i have been bashed for what i believe in, even for the way i dress, i just don't like hitting peope and have never had to.

"""I don't know where to start, if I'm honest. I might just have to help you learn your timestable and the alphabet, given by the level of either, I'm not sure if it's "oh fuck, i'm wrong, but I can't be seen to give in", or just pure retardness."""

no one is wrong here it's just opinions. and btw before i finished school (up to 12th year) i was doing maths that, i know for a fact, they do in the 1st and 2nd years of university in england, on maths courses. i also did ancient greek language, physics, (relatively simple) organic biology, french etc. and came out with an alright score or 14 out of 20. and i moved here from australia when i was starting 7th grade (11yr) not knowing a word of greek. so i do find it insulting if someone calls me a retard


----------



## moshpiler (Apr 16, 2009)

"""killing...is a blanket statement...murder and self defense are very diffrent concepts...wouldnt you agree?...no matter how passive you are...some deaths are deserved...

...that would be one hell of a bar fight...but if Putin and Lil' Kim (Jong-il) were out havin a beer and one of em took a swing on the other...oooooh boy!...thered be trouble in paradise!...more than a million times over..."""

yeah but you don't go to war intent on defending yourself. and yes, i do consider the americans going after osama bin laden as defence because they, rightly so, felt threatened by him. but to invade iraq, with no plausible reason other than messing with other people's business and getting oil is downright wrong. and if someone claims that the main goal of the war in iraq was not oil, i'm calling troll. wars are only ever fought for power and money. history teaches us so much.chasing after laden does not count as war for me because they could have limited their military operations to finding and apprehending him.


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

moshpiler said:


> using sound judgment, can you really say that the weapons industry cares who they get they're money from?


Sound judgement doesn't come into the discussion of this particular weapon, since it was developed specifically for US military use, it simply won't be sold to other countries that aren't trusted.
You're right though, most gun companies would sell to anyone (I'm sure SOME care).



moshpiler said:


> yeah but which nationalities human lives? if it's saving the lives of one side then it's killing people on the other side. it's war, it's wrong and no argument will prove otherwise


It doesn't matter what country they're from, it's to do with their allegiance.
Maybe they don't even SUPPORT the regime they're fighting for, but just had to to survive, or were forced into it; you can't win them all, you kill the enemies that need to be killed, and spare as many as you can without risking soldiers.
The point is, if a soldier is fighting on the side of your enemy, they are an enemy, it's quite simple; if you have declared war, you have declared war against the primary target and everyone who actively and knowingly supports it. War doesn't automatically mean killing, it means that you will use whatever force you need to in order to achieve your goal.

And saying that war is wrong and you can't be disproven on the matter is basically the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "LALALALLALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALALA!".
War is not wrong; war is horrible, but war is not wrong.
Wrong insinuates it is morally wrong; it is not morally wrong to kill 10,000 people in order to save 100,000 from death, and that's often fundamentally what wars are about, saving lives from death or oppression.


*edit*
[email protected] how horribly derailed this thread got xD


----------



## moshpiler (Apr 16, 2009)

*edit*
[email protected] how horribly derailed this thread got xD

my bad


----------



## Brother Emund (Apr 17, 2009)

Yep, I agree. I started the thread because I thought it would open up a reasonable discussion, but unfortunately ended up very bloody and personal. Can we all shake hands and start again?? :drinks:


----------



## comrade (Jun 30, 2008)

Brother Emund said:


> Yep, I agree. I started the thread because I thought it would open up a reasonable discussion, but unfortunately ended up very bloody and personal. Can we all shake hands and start again?? :drinks:



NEVER!!!!!!!!!! :threaten:


----------



## Brother Emund (Apr 17, 2009)

comrade said:


> NEVER!!!!!!!!!! :threaten:


WAR it is then... The Emperor's Vengeance Space Marine Chapter verses 3rd Red Army Excursion (Imperial Guard). We shall bathe in your blood..... and use your bones as play things.


----------



## comrade (Jun 30, 2008)

The unstoppable hordes of the 3rd Red Army Excursion from the Maelstrom AND WE DEMAND COOKIES!

..... with chocolate chips.


----------

