Cool

Coil guns are less of a maintenance hassle.

>>195414
Is that a real projectile lethal arm?
I didn't know such things existed.

>>195427
lol scifail

Violence is retarded.

the US navy is betting on them

>>195631
yah. but not as a handgun.

>>195641

better, as a dick waving kick ass cannon that can send shells from orbit right in your face from 500-800Km away

to make a Gauss or Rail pistol, we would need to make majors breakthroughs in batteries, capacitors and frame materials

possible with the use of room temperature of super conductors but there is no known way to manufacture those (no Avatar jokes please), and super wear resistant materials to handle the internal parts stress
also the eletronic components would have to be hardned against extreme magnetical fields

>>195480
Concur with this.

>>195480
>>195752

violence put us in the top of the food chain and brought us the confort we enjoy today

>>195828
Not violence against other people, only animals necessary for food.

>>195836

since the dawn of men we have been killing ourselves for many reasons

in our most primitive state we killed ourselves for food territory and women (and still do)
now religion, politics and money also have come into the play

the killing instinct is as natural of the human being as the act of breathing, civilisation has only tamed the beast, but the beast itself will never subside, it will manifest somehow

>>195746
>to make a Gauss or Rail pistol, we would need to make majors breakthroughs in batteries, capacitors and frame materials

It's feasible to make a gauss pistol comparable to a .22 pistol, but it's a lot bulkier. You need good quality pulse caps (photoflash caps will survive a dozen shots if you're lucky). The projectiles need to be ferromagnetic and non-conducting (e.g. powdered iron).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCeCHh1D2w8

Large-scale railguns for nuclear powered warships? Shure!
Infantry rifles? Perhaps in the future. I think it would be hard to motivate switching out, since i can't really see that many potential advantages with a handheld railgun.

>>196009
You kidding? Handheld railguns/coilguns would be awesome!
The slow rate of fire might suck, and you could only fire ferromagnetic materials (which are much less dense, mind you, than lead), and you would need a considerable amount of energy to run it, but... Fucking railgun!

>>195991

I was assuming weapons able to suprass the curent ones in firepower and range

if we were to make such weapons to have the same performance of the traditional firearms it would be way more cheap and logical stay with the later

>>196025
it's not because it sounds cooler that it's actually more practical

>>196009

>potential advantages with a handheld railgun.

weapon range
stopping power
amour piercing
ligher ammunition
less muzzle flash
rate of fire

>>196039
How? How could handheld rail guns be practical? I'm saying within, oh... five years. Given five years of time to develop rail gun tech, how much better could it be than simple gunpowder?

>>196051
see
>>195746

not in five years, but after what I just cited it may be a feasible option

One advantage of electromagnetic propulsion for vehicle-mounted weapons is that there's less of a need to decide in advance how to divide the load capacity between fuel and ordnance propellant.

Another advantage is that coil guns don't have muzzle flash (railguns are a different matter; at high energy, the projectile tends to end up as plasma).

>>195480
>>195752
>>195836

>>196058
Okay. Maybe we develop super capacitors, capable of housing hundreds of Farads in the size of a dime, and maybe we develop a cooling system the size of a pistolgrip, and other such advances, what makes you think that's cheap? Good ol' gunpowder is relatively cheap and easy to produce. And not that many downsides.

>>196129

human nature helps

armor evolves to deal with our current weaponry, the next logical step is to make a new and better one capable of defeating the new kind of armour

plus the military never gave a crap if it is cheap or not, they just want new toys that are bettet than the old ones

>>196129
You're comparing the cost of a platform to the cost of some ammo.

That they're moe as fuck, and accelerator is a faggot.

You know, I always have to remind myself that coil gun is the actual name for the first thing that comes to mind when I think railgun.

>>196158
I don't know... I'd rather not get into a discussion about politics. I mean, the military industrial complex, which will, of course, love to sponsor new weapons for a price, will be the death of us... It's one reason we're in Iraq.

>>196163
No, I'm comparing the platform and the product. How much do you think coolant will cost? Or, for that matter, all the gizmos inside of the rail gun? Gunpowder rifles are efficient, with minimal requirements.

Sorry guys, I am just playing the devil's advocate here.

>>196232
Coolant? If you've got your futuristic railgun materials it'll produce less heat for the same power as a chemical rifle. Also it fires simple chunks of metal, no propellant cartridges or casings.

>>196232

it takes the same logical concepts that made us move from bows → flintlocks → lever action → assault rifles
the manufacturing and components cost lower enough to alow the new tech to be used widely

>>196272
You have to have coolant. You can't produce a sufficient magnetic field without expending a lot of energy to the coils, and much of that energy is lost as heat. There's no way that can be avoided.
Unless you've found a new fundamental law of magnetism.

Anyway, I wasn't talking about the cartridges or casings. I meant how much would it cost for the magnetic coils, the batteries, the capacitors, etc.

>>196336
>You can't produce a sufficient magnetic field without expending a lot of energy to the coils

Is it using the future tech material put forth or not? Make up your mind.
If your accelerator efficiency is higher than that for chemical combustion, then you will have less waste heat than chemical combustion.

>>196049
> Potential advantages of a conventional firearm:
It shoots.

>>196393
But what you are saying doesn't belong in /sci/ then. It belongs in /scifi/.
I was being generous when I said that supercapacitors and batteries made, because, theoretically, they can be made. With sufficient time and effort, a capacitor, nay the width of a hair, with a good dielectric could be made. What doesn't change is the necessities of the coils. They will produce heat. Electric current has a nasty habit of doing that.

>>196481
Unless you have conductors with very low resistance, which is also something we're working towards. In which case it's not a whole lot of heat.

>>196493
Why railguns?

See that fire? There's no chemical source for that. The shell is traveling so fast that the friction of its passing turns the air into a plasma.

>>195480
enjoy your lack of funding for innovation and SCIENCE

>>196481
please take a look
>>196300


in 1800 machineguns were just a dream and many asked why would one need to shoot that many bullets and how can we manufacture one, the cost of one machine gun would ne enough to arm an entire rifle squadron ?

>>196529
ie: short-sighted, didn't pay attention in history class