It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Micro handguns?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 01:56 PM
link   
The 2.7mm Kolibri pistol was the smallest handgun ever (maybe...), so small it looks like a keychain toy.

That was almost a century ago, but it was not very useful. With modern technology, could a gun be made this small which would still be deadly - or even smaller? What's the absolute limit?




posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 03:12 PM
link   
Assuming you take all measures to make the bullet as lethal as possible, than I guess it could be as small as the point of a needle (the projectile). projectiles can be EXTREMELY small but still lethal i.e. Ricin or Botulin coating.



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 03:15 PM
link   
using modern technology - i would reccoimend 1:10 darts rather tha conventional bullets [ you get some mass and aerodynamic efficiency ]

but really - the only reall application fopr such weapons is using ricin or other toxin filled pellets



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 08:02 PM
link   
Oh, how cute that is. I could carry it in my bra. And as far as accuracy, point blank in the groin.



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 08:04 PM
link   
So you want the smallest handgun in the world to be leathal? Well if you fire a 22 up near the back of the ear the bullet will bounce arround the inside of the skull and almoast liquify the persons brain. so I guess it's possible. But why?



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpyderLady
Oh, how cute that is. I could carry it in my bra. And as far as accuracy, point blank in the groin.


Freaking ouch, there's got to be something in the Geneva Convention about that.



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 05:31 AM
link   
Yea im not to hot on the whole blowing away of the "boys" idea from SpyderLady.

I can just see how that would go down...

(MAN) Hi can I get your number?

(WOMAN) I got your number right here jack &*&.. pow! Hows that for a number?

(MAN) ARGH! OW! OW! OW! what a tiny little gun. ow ow ow ::passes out from pain::



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpyderLady
Oh, how cute that is. I could carry it in my bra. And as far as accuracy, point blank in the groin.


thank god your in the US


on note to the gun
does that even have enough force to penotrate the skin?



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 02:20 PM
link   
The Kolibri bullet would go through .5" - 1.5" of pine board, so it would piece skin and then some...but the lethality is questionable.

My thought is that modern design and materials you could make something much better, with rifling, higher pressures, better projectile design, etc.

This was partly thinking of concealed carry, both for good guys and the potential threat - how small before a gun would not be recognised as such?

But also thinking of projectiles in general. 40 years back large calibre rifle bullets gave way to the much-derided 5.56mm rounds; could modern technology produce something even smaller (flechette-like) with equal lethality? This could hugely increade the number of rounds carried or decrease the load - or make possible far greater firepower.

But can you make a 2mm round lethal without resorting to toxins, whether it's from a handgun at point blank or a future rifle?



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 06:08 PM
link   
There are Derringers that are maybe slightly larger and fire a centre-fire cardridge of up to .45ACP.

While a minature pistol is a fun novelty, I see no real use for it, a cap gun is just as fun and it wouldn't shoot an eye out.

the Semmerling is probably the most powerful example of a pocket pistol it fires 5 rounds of .45ACP, but has to be manually cocked every shot.



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 06:09 PM
link   
The thing is, smaller rounds aren't as effective as larger rounds, you can just carry a lot more of them(but you have to use a lot more of them to achieve the same effect). 7.62mm is a far more devestating round than a 5.56mm. You won't get a good wound channel with a 2mm, so unless you're using some poison tip, it's not going to be an advantage.



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja 7.62mm is a far more devestating round than a 5.56mm.


This one has been the subject of much debate, but as far as wound ballistics go it not appear to be true. the 7.62 may have more energy, but in terms of what it will do to a human body 5.56 is not necessarily inferior.



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 01:20 PM
link   
The 5.56mm round can produce terrible wounds under certain circumstances, but 7.62 is effective is most every circumstance.
The original 5.56 round was a 55gr round, fired from the M-16A1 with a longer twist barrel(meaning the round was less stable in flight, and prone to tumble on impact). With the advent of the M-16A2, the rifling was tighter, and the round heaver 63gr, giving more accuracy and penetration, but lower soft tissue damage. The standard weapon now is the M4 Carbine, which has a 16" barrel, so you have a stable round, with 200 feet per second slower velocity under the M16, reducing the terminal effect even moreso. The 7.62mm round is effective out to 1000m, with greater penetration under most any circumstance, and is lethal(whereas the 5.56 is designed primarily to wound). There have been countless examples of multiple 5.56mm rounds being necessary to put a foe down. The 7.62 usually is effective with one shot.

[edit on 11-1-2007 by BlueRaja]



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 11:54 AM
link   
Argh! This myth about 'designed to wound' just will not die...

Check out
"LTC Chuck Santose on why the 5.56 was NOT "Designed to Wound"

at groups.msn.com...

"5.56mm Ball meets the "lethal wound" criteria at 1000 yards and the "disabling wound" criteria beyond 1300 yards where my ballistic tables finally give up"

If you take a look at the literature on wound ballistics you will see why the 5.56 SS109/M193 rounds are so deadly, because of the huge cavities they produce - home.snafu.de... - an effect not produced by all 7.62mm rounds.



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 02:33 PM
link   
If you're going to get that close to your target and want to kill [it] with that small a pistol or even use a .22 that size, then there is only one surefire way of killing a human with pistol that big.

It is one of the old KGB's favoured methods of assassination. Place the muzzle close enough to the base of the left armpit and, holding the pistol as level as possible, gently squeeze the trigger.

The round should travel through a gap in the ribcage, covering a short distance before it rips through the heart.

A very quiet and very professional close range hit, and I believe that is what that type of pistol is for.



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wembley

If you take a look at the literature on wound ballistics you will see why the 5.56 SS109/M193 rounds are so deadly, because of the huge cavities they produce - home.snafu.de... - an effect not produced by all 7.62mm rounds.


defensereview.com...

"It's no secret that the performance of both the M4 Carbine and it’s 5.56x45mm caliber have, so far, been somewhat less than outstanding in the war against Al-Queda forces in Afghanistan. In short, the enemy hasn't been dropping quickly enough when they are hit.

Apparently, the M855 has been zipping right through the bad guys, leaving clean holes out the other side. This is not good. It means that our guys have to hit an enemy soldier multiple times, sometimes as many as 4 or 5 times, to put them down. This is extremely dangerous when one is engaged in CQB inside a dark cave, which is already dangerous enough, by its very nature. "


www.chuckhawks.com...

"5.56 NATO and 7.62 NATO advantages and drawbacks
The weight of the ammunition is no small matter when soldiers in the field must carry hundreds of rounds. If memory serves, 200 rounds of 5.56NATO weighed 6.25 pounds and a 30 round magazine weighed 1 pound. 100 rounds of link 7.62 NATO weighs 10 pounds. (When you've humped this stuff, you remember what everything weighs.) These things become important when determining your TO&E for a mission.

The big advantage of the 5.56 is its low recoil and lightweight rifle and ammunition. The major drawbacks for the 5.56 are the lack of penetration and poor long-range effectiveness. Some of this was originally addressed with the slower rifling twist of the early AR-15, which marginally stabilized the bullet in flight and often caused the bullet to tumble upon impact, increasing wounding ability. But as the years went by the rifling twist was increased, making the bullet more stable, more accurate, more lethal at greater range but, paradoxically, less effective as a casualty-producing weapon since the bullet no longer tumbled on impact, creating less tissue displacement. The M16A2 had rifling twist of 1 in 7" primarily to stabilize the longer tracer rounds, though 1 in 9" twist seems to be sufficient and is what, I believe, the current M4 carbine has. The rifling twist was slowed due to some concerns on increased wear/increased heat/reduced longevity of the 1 in 7" barrels under cyclic fire conditions.

In performance the 7.62 NATO is everything the 5.56 is not. Meaning greater effectiveness and range, but it carries the penalties of greater recoil, increased weapon weight, and greater weight and bulk of ammunition. This reduces the amount of ammunition that can be carried by foot."

www.d-n-i.net...


"Subject: Small Arms Performance in Afghanistan

Report of American small arms performance from a friend currently assigned to an infantry unit in Afghanistan:

"The current-issue 62gr 5.56mm (223) round, especially when fired from the short-barreled, M-4 carbine, is proving itself (once again) to be woefully inadequate as man stopper. Engagements at all ranges are requiring multiple, solid hits to permanently bring down enemy soldiers. Penetration is also sadly deficient. Even light barriers are not perforated by this rifle/cartridge combination. Troopers all over are switching to the seventy-seven grain Sierra Matchking (loaded by Black Hills) whenever it can be found. Its performance on enemy soldiers is not much better, but it does penetrate barriers. We're fighting fanatics here, and they don't find wimpy ammunition particularly impressive! "



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja
The 5.56mm round can produce terrible wounds under certain circumstances, but 7.62 is effective is most every circumstance.
The original 5.56 round was a 55gr round, fired from the M-16A1 with a longer twist barrel(meaning the round was less stable in flight, and prone to tumble on impact). With the advent of the M-16A2, the rifling was tighter, and the round heaver 63gr, giving more accuracy and penetration, but lower soft tissue damage. The standard weapon now is the M4 Carbine, which has a 16" barrel, so you have a stable round, with 200 feet per second slower velocity under the M16, reducing the terminal effect even moreso. The 7.62mm round is effective out to 1000m, with greater penetration under most any circumstance, and is lethal(whereas the 5.56 is designed primarily to wound). There have been countless examples of multiple 5.56mm rounds being necessary to put a foe down. The 7.62 usually is effective with one shot.

[edit on 11-1-2007 by BlueRaja]


This is simply not the case. I am a proponent of the 7.62 v 5.56 mm debate and I will always choose the 7.62 milly round over the 5.56mm S109 round.

The 7.62mm round is not effective out to 1,000 metres, is is effective out to 1800 metres. The round fird from FN SLRs, can penetrate, trees, bricks, breezeblocks and sheet steel and then go and kill somebody.

With the 7.62mm FMJ round, it is the Tissue Shock that kills, not the round itself. [As the round flies through the air, a cone of compressed air goes before the point of the projectile [bullet]. This cone of highly compressed air is shaped like this: >< and strikes the target a split second before the round punches through.

As the round passes through the human body, a vacuum is formed behind the round and is [usually] dragged through to exit the body, taking clothing, flesh and bone fragments with it.

The human body can withstand very severe trauma, but not that caused by a military spec 7.62 round if it hits anywhere between the chin and the groin.

The 5.56 milly S109 round is a very differant kettle of fish. Because of the number of rifled grooves in the barrel, the 5.56mm round spins faster than the 7.62 round. This spin does vastly increase muzzle velocity and range but as the round does have the same characteristics as its bigger brother, the 7.62.

The S109 can penetrate wood, bricks and breezeblocks and also thin sheet metel/steel, because it is a very high velocity round. It will also kill anything behind that type of cover.

The 5.56 mm S109 round will, on striking human flesh, penetrate and start to bend nose to tail. At the same time, it will start to tumble, again nose to tail.

As if this was not enough, the tremendous forces acting on the bullet will also cause it to start to split and will, eventually, tear it apart, causing horrendous tissue damage from a minimum of 4 pieces of copper/lead travelling at tremendous speed.

This damage may not be sufficient to kill outrightly, but nobody hit in the chest or stomach in this way by one or two rounds, will get up and walk away - provided he, she or it, is not protected by some type of body armour.

At ranges of 100 metres or less, then it is feasible that a round or rounds striking the target will become through and throughs, but even then, it will seriously bugger up yer day.



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 02:27 AM
link   
Effective at 1800m against point or area targets?



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 01:59 PM
link   
GT, I believe your description of wound ballistics is not no longer current:

"It is interesting to note that, for many years, the .223 was thought to cause such impressive wounding capabilities d/t a "tumbling" effect within the body. In fact, all bullets tumble to varying degrees when they enter the body – the .233 is not special in this regard. Most of the damage associated with this round is the result of the fragmentation of the bullet, especially fracturing at the cannelure, and the resulting multiple wound channels caused secondarily to this. "

"In years past, this hydrostatic effect was thought to contribute significantly to the ability of a bullet to wound or incapacitate a person. It is now known that this temporary displacement of soft tissue by the hydrostatic effect contributes little to the actual wound severity"

natsci.parkland.edu...

matrix.dumpshock.com...

I'm not saying that ALL 5.56mm rounds are equally effective - clearly they are not (and the M4 combo is a design disaster) - but a well-engineered 5.56mm round well matched to a rifle certainly is.

1,000m + is pretty irrelevant to modern combat. Sure, there are snipers who work at that distance (rarely) but they use specialist weapons. In real life combat is 200m and less - the vast majority of soldiers in the world are not trained to anything else.

So, getting back to the original point - given that 5.56mm rounds are lethal at realistic ranges, can imprvoed technology give the same lethality to even smaller rounds?



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by GT100FV
Effective at 1800m against point or area targets?


I'm talking about The General - you know, the Gimpy or General Purpose Machine Gun - accurate out to 1800 metres.

Not talking about infantrymen or Marines [British] - even though they can walk on water
or paras.

Perhaps a sniper could kill out to that range with a 7.62 milly sniper rifle firing special match or sniper grade ammunition - but otherwise no.

With regards to your ballistic report, that my friend is most definately innaccurate.

Only last Wednesday morning, I was watching an ex gunnery sgt whack a current issue combat helmet with a mag of 5.56 mm and it ripped it to pieces - firing 3 round then 5 round bursts.

I then sat open mouthed and watched as he reloaded and fired single rounds in to huge slabs of beeswax - this has the same density of human flesh and tissue and obviously is representative of the human body.

I always knew the 7.62 mm rounds did damage, but by Christ, these 5.56 milly rounds ripped the beeswax apart and there were no through and throughs - even at ranges of under 100 metres.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join