It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Machine gun, fires "laser of lead" 1 mill. RPM

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 6 2003 @ 02:19 AM
Perhaps you could FIRST explain to the REST of us the "" you have been talking about... for the artillery peice the concept is the same, multiple charges, spaced to disperse the force before the ejection of the projectile/ however if you'd be so inquisitive you'd begin to wonder how the "MetalS" really'll notice it doesn't tell you.

It says this that...but not how it really works.

Now I'd like to point out the NUMEROUS Australian government backed HOAXES! that have been floating around, such as the PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE!

I doubt the full capacity of this gun is accurate.

Now I'd like to point the public's attention to your complete AVOIDANCE of my points of military strategy...I suppose you then agree, this weapon is useless?

no signature

[Edited on 6-1-2003 by FreeMason]

posted on Jan, 6 2003 @ 02:27 AM
Ok going back to your statement that a hand gun can shoot 180,000 rounds per second....well I decided to do some math, because I knew this was ridiculus...but I didn't realize it was THIS RIDICULUS HAHAHAHAHAHAHHA.....

Your statement basically says that for one second, I can walk from here to wherever the bullets end up.

Because as we all know light travels 186,000 feet per second, and bullets 1100 feet per second (about probably 3000 feet or something).


Considering how fast you'd have to be firing, that means each bullet would have to basically be nose to back!

Now one thing I don't know though, is the length of the bullet in question, but I bet times it by 180,000 and it will damn near reach the end of its trajectory, maybe even surpass it, which basically would mean you'd be firing a string

no signature

posted on Jan, 6 2003 @ 04:27 AM
Freemason what the hell are you talking about, the German weapon has nothing to do with this. I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH CLEARER I CAN SAY IT.
You obviously haven't looked at the site, so please refrain from your ignorant comments.
You are the one talking about bull#. Actually you don't know what you are talking about, do you ?

originally posted by Freemason
Because as we all know light travels 186,000 feet per second, and bullets 1100 feet per second (about probably 3000 feet or something).

When someone states that the speed of light is 186,000 feet per second, it's obvious they aren't too bright. To clear things up light travels at 186,000 MILES PER SECOND. Also how can 1,100 feet be equal to 3000 feet ? DOPEY.

[Edited on 6-1-2003 by mad scientist]

posted on Jan, 6 2003 @ 01:05 PM

Finally someone walks right into a moron award.

Freemason, a good idea to know what you are talking about before jumping in.

Also, completely apart from your incorrect statements about the speed of light. The whole idea of metalstorm is _exactly_ so the projectiles can be fired front to back, the charges can be fired electrically one after the other, so in theory you can have more than one projectile moving down the barrel at a time.

Also, out of curiosity, where is this perpetual motion machine hoax of which you speak?

posted on Jan, 6 2003 @ 01:45 PM
Metal storm has all kinds of military applications, the one that i think of when i look at this is ship defense, replacing the CIWS on ships

posted on Jan, 6 2003 @ 02:11 PM
It was late at night, I didn't mean feet
oh well....what I'm still talking about is only application, we have PASSED the artillery, there is no application.

King the Ciws is perfect in itself, we don't need such a high speed weapon to replace it. The Air Craft carrier's BPMDS is fine.

no signature

posted on Jan, 6 2003 @ 02:44 PM
I think the best looking application is the replacement of landmines. Takes care of the nasty cleanup after hostilities not to mention how quickly it can be deployed.

posted on Jan, 6 2003 @ 08:15 PM

posted on Jan, 7 2003 @ 12:42 PM
The Metal Storm Variable Lethality Law Enforcement (VLE) pistol

O'Dwyer has also adapted the technology for a police revolver. The all-electronic handgun uses the technology to ensure the gun can only to be fired if its user is wearing a special ring that emits an electronic signal.

This means the gun would be worthless if it is taken from a policeman by an assailant.

In addition, the gun can fire both lethal and non-lethal projectiles. But so far, no police forces have stepped up to buy them.

posted on Jan, 7 2003 @ 11:23 PM
Lets see, if its such a good idea to save ammo, why do we have miniguns, or even machine guns for that matter.

The pure fact is, faster firing weapons will always have an application, who cares about wasting a few million rounds if it will save a warship from a missile? Or save a bomber, or any of the other many applications listed on the MS website, and able to be created in your imagination.

Noone is saying this is the be-all and end-all of firearms, it is just an interesting new innovation, no other similar weapons have completely electronic firing systems. No other similar weapons can come close to the rate of fire. Doesn't the CWIS throw a stream of fire at the incoming warhead? Is it not possible it could be more effective with a bigger stream, or even a wall of fire to attempt to take out the target? It obviously needs work, but its definitely a handy innovation.

To go back a little bit to an earlier post of FM's I am curious as to why you think this is a hoax FM, and any information you have about other hoaxes by the Aus govt. Or is this just a little more FM fiction?

posted on Jan, 7 2003 @ 11:41 PM
Yes, it seems like an interesting hoax. As they have video clips on the MS site showing the technology working. The fact that DARPA has become involved is all the backing MS needs. DARPA scientists aren't stupid !!!!
Neither are the Aussie's DSTO.
Need I say more.

As well CIWS systems rely on a high rate of fire to achieve a kill. The higher the rate the more probability of a kill. FreeMason, you talk about using missiles for CIWS, how much does one missile cost, probably more than 10 million rounds of ammunition. To ensure destruction of an incoming threat more than one missile would be targetted at the bogie anyway.

Kano is totally right !!!

posted on Jan, 8 2003 @ 06:42 PM
Hey Kano such example of the Aus. govt. "illegedly" backing up hoaxes was that post I did saying about the "perpetual motion machine" where scientists claimed they found a way of doing it using permanent magnets.

I posted that in a hurry, then we all discussed it and proved it was pretty much little more than a hoax, even though the site claims to have patents, the Aussie government has done nothing to disclaim this, even though if it were real it could never get a patent under the auspices of breaking the laws of nature.

There is very little "FM" fiction, far less than you'd like to believe.

no signature

posted on Jan, 8 2003 @ 09:27 PM
FM and anyone else that is wondering this system does have potential both as a defense system and as artillery. ESPECIALLY in the mortar type category. The only two similar systems to this were the German Nebelwerfer in WWII (which electrically launched rockets) and the Danish Espingol of the 1800s. I concur there is the possibility of difficulty or reloading during a combat situation. However it should be noted that the weapon doesnt have to fire the entire barrel it can fire off a set of bullets from several different barrels, just one, or all of them together, nor does it have to empty an entire barrel of bullets because each bullet and propellent charge is separate. Secondly the system is fired electromechanically which adds in more safety during the firing procedure. Thirdly the million rounds per minute is a theoretical potential. The system would overheat if it actually had access to that much ammo and was continuously firing them (note even a phalanx CIWS system only has access to about 50k rounds). Oh and in case anyone is wondering why saturation strikes are nice, ask anyone who was a WWII vet (especially German WWII vets) about the guaranteed artillery barrage that would usually be faced when coming up against american troops. Trust me folks this system has potential.

posted on Jan, 8 2003 @ 10:05 PM
No if you asked any Germans that were in WW2 they'd tell you what anyone with half a brain tells you, saturation bombing/strikes just doesn't work.

In WW2 we were dropping so many bombs on Germany you'd wonder how there's not a big hole there now, and yet in 1945, not even a full years worth of production, after all that bombing, managed to produce more tanks and more weapons and munitions, than nearly all the rest of the war combined.

What wore down the Germans and caused us to win, was great many a sacrifice by Russians, whom fought the germans with "out-of-date" bolt action rifles.

No, I think people whom believe that you can defeat an enemy by firestorming or leveling with "more fire power" are kidding themselves. This has only been shown to work with nuclear weapons, nothing else does the trick, not bombs, nor machines that put out a million rounds.

Besides no one still commented on whether or not this machine is capable at firing in a wide arc, of if it is limited to firing at only a point.

Firing in an arc would greatly improve its efficiency, but the photos don't seem to show it having much "flexibility" in that matter.

no signature

posted on Jan, 8 2003 @ 10:16 PM
Saturation bombing did work in WW2. It was Albert Speers brilliant organisational skills which allowed the Nazi's to increases production. As well they moved many of their factories to old mines etc.

As for Russians using out of date weaponry, true in '41 and most of '42, but after that they out produced the Nazi's in almost every area. The Soviet Army had enire artillery divisions, so as to blast through the German lines. That's how much material they were producing.

Now, why do you have this fixation of this wepaon firing in an arc. I assume you are still talking about the 36 barrelled gun. No doubt it would be RADAR or LADAR guided, so there is no need for an arc, it would be pointed in the right direction.

posted on Jan, 8 2003 @ 10:26 PM
I think the photo's are of a prototype model arent they?

posted on Jan, 8 2003 @ 10:26 PM
Because MS an arc, would ensure that it is hiting a maximum amount of targets.

Again why shoot 100,000 rounds into one target, when you could spread the rounds out by angling the barrels so as to hit a whole feild of area.

You're wrong about the timing though, the Russians were not out producing the Germans until they had already been pushing them back through the Ukraine, the turn around was thanks entirely to Russian sacrifice, their weather, and the much needed just in time Saw automatic? Or is it called Squad Automatic (can't remember which)...

Although certain aspects of production helped them, I still remember and found it quite interesting, about the factory near to moscow I believe (I may be off on location but whatever) where it was producing tanks and the tank crew would drive it out of the factory to the front about 20 miles away, because the germans couldn't shut down the factory there, they did get over ran there.

But as for the bombing, it is ineffective everywhere, even in Afghanistan.

Don't you think if there is a way they will not take it? No one is going to be bombed undefended, and like wise, no one is going to sit in a big field and be wasted by this over-powered machine gun.

This weapon's only use would be if the enemy fought using 18th and 19th century tactics. There'd you get a show.

As far as defense from incoming projectiles, that is what the Laser research is better suited for.

This weapon is too would have been something for vietnam...but not today, where we are on a verge of a major paradigm shift.

no signature

posted on Jan, 8 2003 @ 11:51 PM
Freemason, you are the stupidist person I have ever come come across.

Obviously you still haven't read the MS site. Kano is right it is a prototype and wouldn't be used in the field. Read the website and read about all the applications of the technology, that's what the links are for !!!!!
As for the Eastern Front, I can't be bothered listing the facts, but I'm sure if you did a search you would find out that you are wrong. Russian production picked up greatly in the latter half of '42 to surpass the German's in most major areas, especially AFV's and artillery.

posted on Jan, 9 2003 @ 05:11 AM
The video for the area denial system using mortars uses an animation of it being deployed in the field. With reference to arcing. I think, though I'm not entirely sure, that FM was referring to whether the area denial module is able to fire in an arc (I assume this as the posts directly above refer to this application of the system). In the video is shows that you have to have a number of them setup to cover a sqaure area. There is a small arc, but you have to set them up to cross over each other to ensure full coverage.

What it doesn't say is the range of coverage. Perhaps they haven't tested this module yet - hence the animation I suppose - but I do find it interesting, in that as its only propped up on collapsable legs just how sturdy it would be if it received close by incoming shells - hence my question about the range. Did anyone else see any mention of the coverage on the site. If so please point me to it.

I'm just interested in its weaknesses that all.

posted on Jan, 18 2003 @ 04:12 AM

An all-electronic firing control mechanism is easily adapted to include a fingerprint-based user-ID system, and an on-the-fly selection of different rounds for different situations

O'Dwyer's revolutionary weapons concept is based on an electronically fired gun-and-launcher design with multiple rounds stacked in a single barrel. The only moving parts are the bullets themselves. Beyond creating an astounding fast-firing weapon, the concept makes way for the creation of entirely new types of firearms. Among other things, it will allow the shooter to select from different types of rounds and even between firing lethal and nonlethal ammunition. O'Dwyer's ideas were initially met with skepticism, but now they are being taken seriously by the military and police.


January 16, 2003
Metal Storm Technology Selected by US Navy's Office of Naval Research for Small Business Innovation Research Project

Metal Storm currently has multi-million dollar research and development agreements in place to develop its technology with leading defence-related agencies such as the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the Australian Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO). Metal Storm Limited is listed on the
Australian Stock Exchange (trading code MST) and Nasdaq (ticker code MTSX).

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in