I looked, but I still really hope this isn't a repost.

Check it out, Metal Storm will simply devestate anything it comes against. Or at least it seems that way.

http://i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=18394

Looks deadly.

I will carry the gun now who will carry ammunition

I've been keeping up with their published ideas for a couple years. I'm curious to see if some of these ideas will shape themselves into actual battlefield weapons.

250,000 rounds a minute is pretty darned impressive, but how difficult is it to keep that volume of fire up? How practical is it to reload the weapon? If the rounds stack in the barrel (a la the demoed pistol), does that degrade accuracy in the first rounds fired by effectively shortening the barrel?

Originally Posted by moving0target

I've been keeping up with their published ideas for a couple years. I'm curious to see if some of these ideas will shape themselves into actual battlefield weapons.

250,000 rounds a minute is pretty darned impressive, but how difficult is it to keep that volume of fire up? How practical is it to reload the weapon? If the rounds stack in the barrel (a la the demoed pistol), does that degrade accuracy in the first rounds fired by effectively shortening the barrel?

Metal Storm claims that the legnth of the barrel will have no effect on the accuracy of the weapon.

• Barrel wear may have been a significant issue with the original shell/barrel jamming design.
• The high pressure generated in the barrel was apparently a concern with 50mm+ calibres. Metal Storm patented a method of 'barrel pressure relief' but the current state of development of high pressure, high speed (Mach 5) applications of the technology is unclear.
• While the simplified mechanics and relative light weight of a metal storm gun barrels suggested that they might have advantages when deployed on light unmanned aerial vehicles, recoil management becomes a significant issue relative to the light weight of the vehicle and consequently to flight stability. Metal Storm have suggested that this may require a partly avionic (flight control) solution.

Some issues arise from the fundamental aspects of the technology:

• Manual, automatic and semi-automatic reloading concepts exist, incorporating breech and muzzle loading into permanent barrels, throw-away barrels (and barrel arrays), a belt-fed stacked-cartridge gun patent, and a patented breechless continuous feed gun with injected propellant. With the exception of the belt-fed and the breechless gun patents, all of Metal Storm's gun concepts are limited to bursts of no more the number of bullets or shells pre-loaded into the barrel(s). A barrel array might contain more shells in fact than a traditional 'clip' or 'belt', but would not be able to compete with ship or aircraft mounted guns or dedicated belt fed machine guns with very long ammuntion belts (unless the barrel array was duplicated to allow alternate reloading). Single barrel designs appear to currently be limited to 3 or 5 stacked rounds before reloading. That limitation in the case of 9mm bullets may appear restrictive, while in 40mm and above calibres it is competitive with current capacities in traditional technology guns. In cases where sustained rates of fire are required, or where manual reloading would be hazardous, automatic reloading technology will need to be incorporated with Metal Storm technology, reducing the advantage of 'mechanical simplicity' inherent in the original Metal Storm concept.

• Metal Storm has stated that the different barrel lengths travelled by each of the stacked shells would have no significant effect on accuracy. It is not clear what the size of the actual effect is, or whether using variable propellant charges has been used to mitigate this effect. It is understood that the effect is 'less' in the case of the low pressure relatively short range 40mm weapons currently being developed.

• Metal Storm has indicated that single-use throw-away barrels could be manufactured to 'lower' tolerances than multiple use barrels and hence an array of barrels (or spare throw-away barrels) would be lighter than an equivalent number of traditional technology barrels. It is not clear whether Metal Storm have been able to quantify the tolerances or indicate an acceptable method of deployment of such barrels that did not involve undue risk to the operators.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_storm

The automated turrets would make a nice anti-cruise missile system on ships IMHO.

Interesting answers, Ronin. Seems that there are a lot of "mights," "maybes," and "claims" left surrounding the technology. I still wonder exactly how viable it will be. I somehow doubt mechanical concussion firing systems are going to vanish overnight, though they will eventually. Is this the system that will replace them, though?

I still don't really get how they've managed to negate barrel length having an effect on range and accuracy.

Interesting answers, Ronin. Seems that there are a lot of "mights," "maybes," and "claims" left surrounding the technology. I still wonder exactly how viable it will be. I somehow doubt mechanical concussion firing systems are going to vanish overnight, though they will eventually. Is this the system that will replace them, though?

I still don't really get how they've managed to negate barrel length having an effect on range and accuracy.

They all work.
Metalstorm is an Aussie company and I've been privy to seeing DMO testing the gear at Wakefield proof and experimental range north of Adelaide. It is some of the most crazy gear around. I saw the 40mm area denial system being fired, that was a hoot.

I don't give them my support. They suport "smart gun" technology which is against the second amendment. But since they aren't an American owned company. I can't do anything about it.

Also, I don't see their weapon systems ever become man portable.

Lastly, how would you reload the wepaon in the heat of battle. It's a novel idea and is cool but it just isn't practical for the modern battlefield

They already have systems for individual carry, an aussie who was a copper for a few years tested it. I own stock in the company. I support anything that keeps a weapon from being turned on its owner.