Metal Storm

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?
 
moving0target said:
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?
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
How is smart gun technology against the 2nd Amendment? If it wasn't an option, like a trigger lock law, I would agree that it ran against the 2nd. How can the technology itself be a danger to our rights, though?
 
By having a firearm that limits it use to certain people.

What if you have a smart gun that is programed to be used by only you. You're at home. Some thug breaks in and injures you, your wife picks it up but because she isn't programed. She can't defend you or herself.

Samething in the battlefield. What if your squadmate is injured and you pick up the rifle. You're not programed into the wepaon because you don't have the ring or whatever object is used to register the users.

Also, I din't that electrical components that are that critical like those in smart guns will ever be soldier proof.

moving0target said:
How is smart gun technology against the 2nd Amendment? If it wasn't an option, like a trigger lock law, I would agree that it ran against the 2nd. How can the technology itself be a danger to our rights, though?
Click to expand...

During the Clinton Era, the government tried to push smart gun techonolgy as the only legal means for firearms. The only reason why it hasn't happened is because it was yet to be proven feasible (marketable). Colt Firearms was one of the biggest supports of this because they feared that if they didn't they would continue to lose their government contracts. Which happened anyways because of their crappy quality control. Hence why there is still a general boycott by many firearm supports on Colt Firearms.
 
Last edited:
5.56X45mm said:
By having a firearm that limits it use to certain people.
Click to expand...

That doesn't limit your second amendment right. You have the right to bear arms, not to use anyone's gun you want...

Where is your logic??
 
the metal storm system is probably unfeasible. its limited amount of ammo that it can hold means that you will need a belt or magazine system, which means there will have to be moving parts, which means that it can jam. i dont see a way to engineer around this.
 
the metal storm system is probably unfeasible. its limited amount of ammo that it can hold means that you will need a belt or magazine system, which means there will have to be moving parts, which means that it can jam. i dont see a way to engineer around this.
Click to expand...

The systems that have massive rates of fire are not intended to be man portable. They are designed as fixed items. The original head-line grabbing device was capable of a million rounds a minute, that doesn't mean it can sustain fire for a minute. It was designed to create a wall of bullets, like the Phalanx system. These are designed to be ship mounted, or area denial systems.

Obviously Private Shmukatello can't lug around 250,000 rounds on patrol.
 
Maytime said:
I don't think you read his entire post.
Click to expand...

Yes, I did, and not a single damn thing he said supports his claim that it is a violation of the second amendment.
 
What if you have a smart gun that is programed to be used by only you. You're at home. Some thug breaks in and injures you, your wife picks it up but because she isn't programed. She can't defend you or herself.

Samething in the battlefield. What if your squadmate is injured and you pick up the rifle. You're not programed into the wepaon because you don't have the ring or whatever object is used to register the users.
Click to expand...

Battlefeild weapons have no need for smart systems, but I think they would be helpful in police and home defense situations. Theres no reason the technolgoy cant advance to the point were you can get the firearm to accept multiple people.
 
Lover of Richard Simmons said:
Yes, I did, and not a single damn thing he said supports his claim that it is a violation of the second amendment.
Click to expand...

Listen, back to to his example of a home invader: The govt. forced the man to get a smart gun that only he can operate. He's down for the count. His wife picks up the gun, but *click* it won't work, and she is gunned down too. This loss of life could have been prevented by the absense of the smart gun technology. Because of a govt. mandate, she was unable to defend herself.
 
Maytime said:
Listen, back to to his example of a home invader: The govt. forced the man to get a smart gun that only he can operate. He's down for the count. His wife picks up the gun, but *click* it won't work, and she is gunned down too. This loss of life could have been prevented by the absense of the smart gun technology. Because of a govt. mandate, she was unable to defend herself.
Click to expand...

Wait for it...wait for it....what about...a gun, that, *gasp* two or more people could operate? Who's to say that technology is limited to one person?

Jeeze Louise...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top