• New bullet attachment device aims to save lives.
    130 replies, posted
What would ideally be the best weapon in between tasers and guns? I'm not even trying to think of a dumb snipe here, but all I can think of is the stunstick from Half-Life 2, and that's a stupid idea.
[QUOTE=wauterboi;47163931]What would ideally be the best weapon in between tasers and guns? I'm not even trying to think of a dumb snipe here, but all I can think of is the stunstick from Half-Life 2, and that's a stupid idea.[/QUOTE]Instant tranq that works no matter the build or amount of drugs in system.
[QUOTE=madmax678;47163721]I think this is a step in the right direction IMHO, i think the steel ball approach is a bit stupid though, it would make sense to get some rubber and make it a bit bigger so it spreads the kinetic energy across the impact area.[/QUOTE] I would rather get shot with a bullet that penetrates right throught than one that leaves all it's energy at the impact area. Any military person will tell you the same because a bullet that spreads kinectic energy across the impact area is basically a hollow point bullet (which banned by the geneva convention for a reason).
[QUOTE=Kyle902;47162793]Looks like that things made out of rubber though. This thing is literally a small cannonball. Imagine getting hit with a "low velocity" piece of grapeshot[/QUOTE] Again: Increasing the mass of the projectile while retaining the same momentum reduces its kinetic energy. Increasing the cross-sectional area of the projectile reduces its penetrating ability. If the projectile, when fired, weighs five times as much as the bullet and has five times the surface area on the front, it will deliver 1/25th the amount of energy per unit area. That's bruising rather than lethal penetration. Basic physics, guys. It's not a 'cannonball'.
[QUOTE=catbarf;47164185]Again: Increasing the mass of the projectile while retaining the same momentum reduces its kinetic energy. Increasing the cross-sectional area of the projectile reduces its penetrating ability. If the projectile, when fired, weighs five times as much as the bullet and has five times the surface area on the front, it will deliver 1/25th the amount of energy per unit area. That's bruising rather than lethal penetration. Basic physics, guys. It's not a 'cannonball'.[/QUOTE] Did you see their gelatin test? If that is anything to go by, it punches quite a lot of force. If the target isn't obese, depending on location, it should in theory cause a lot of damage.
[QUOTE=itisjuly;47164199]Did you see their gelatin test? If that is anything to go by, it punches quite a lot of force. If the target isn't obese, depending on location, it should in theory cause a lot of damage.[/QUOTE] That's kind of the point. It's meant to be a less-lethal alternative that is still capable of stopping the threat, so it has to have a substantial punch. But if I were on the receiving end I'd take a fractured rib over being dead on arrival any day. All this about 'it's the same thing just a bigger bullet' is nonsense, the principle of reducing kinetic energy through inelastic collision is logical and has been used in [URL="http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/balpen.html"]ballistic pendulums[/URL] for over 250 years. Like I said before, this idea is stupid because police officers generally don't fire just one round in a panicked situation, but random observers on an online forum are not spotting obvious flaws in its physical operation that [i]somehow[/i] slipped by everyone involved. It'll work, until the officer pulls the trigger a second time.
[QUOTE=itisjuly;47164199]Did you see their gelatin test? If that is anything to go by, it punches quite a lot of force. If the target isn't obese, depending on location, it should in theory cause a lot of damage.[/QUOTE] ballistics gelatin isn't a flesh analogue like csi tells you, it's just a consistent medium. ballistics gel is considerably softer and easier to penetrate. 10 inches of penetration in ballistics gel is 4-ish inches in meat before you take into account how much stronger than meat skin is or how much bone is in the way.
Why not use this [video=youtube;f2ZpNaqAVC8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2ZpNaqAVC8[/video] but use this [IMG]http://static.giantbomb.com/uploads/original/0/176/1696475-7290_flash_bang.jpg[/IMG] as warhead.
[QUOTE=wauterboi;47163931]What would ideally be the best weapon in between tasers and guns? I'm not even trying to think of a dumb snipe here, but all I can think of is the stunstick from Half-Life 2, and that's a stupid idea.[/QUOTE] How is a "stunstick" better than a Taser?
[QUOTE=Apache249;47164833]How is a "stunstick" better than a Taser?[/QUOTE] STUNSTICK gives 15 points in Scrabble, TASER only 5.
[QUOTE=Apache249;47164833]How is a "stunstick" better than a Taser?[/QUOTE] Well, doesn't need reloaded I guess.
I have no words for how monumentally stupid this concept is.
except the words you just posted
[QUOTE=Instant Mix;47163675]Well it's not necessarily the velocity, consider the momentum instead - that's what'll fuck you up. Through conservation of momentum the steel ball and bullet combination will have less total momentum than the bullet alone and herefore less energy ( ek = 1/2mv^2, = pv/2 where p = mv ) . It's still not going to be painless but it's definitely going to cause significantly less trauma than a bullet would. Still agree on the "let's not shoot people" stance[/QUOTE] At 1/5 the velocity, so long as the mass of the ball is less than 24 times the bullet's mass, it will have less joules force behind it. That v^2 has a whole lot more effect than the m does. Double v and you get 4 times the force, double m and only 2 times, or in this case, 25 and 5. That is the reason I focused on velocity far more. This also doesn't take into account the greater surface area that is contacted on impact which slows it down as well.
Retarded, obviously wasn't invented by someone who has been in a lethal situation.
Are rubber tipped bullets a thing? I'm not very knowledgable when it comes to guns and bullets but is it possible to reduce the energy from impact if you reduce the amount of powder in the bullet and make it so that the tip is made out of a flat rubber material?
[QUOTE=catbarf;47164227]Like I said before, this idea is stupid because police officers generally don't fire just one round in a panicked situation[/QUOTE] I don't think it's goal is to be used for panicked situations though. The entire point, from my perspective, is in situations where an officer wouldn't want to attempt to use a taser due to the potential danger to themselves, they could attempt to use this with a greatly reduced amount of risk. That said, even the second or two of distraction (unless the officer has been practicing this enough so its muscle memory, which I doubt) can be very dangerous in some situations, so it seems that the range of situations where it would be useful (over a taser) would be somewhat limited. [editline]18th February 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;47165826]Are rubber tipped bullets a thing? I'm not very knowledgable when it comes to guns and bullets but is it possible to reduce the energy from impact if you reduce the amount of powder in the bullet and make it so that the tip is made out of a flat rubber material?[/QUOTE] Requiring a special round to be chambered defeats the purpose to some degree and will make it even harder for departments to adopt I think.
[QUOTE=Apache249;47164833]How is a "stunstick" better than a Taser?[/QUOTE] I dunno. Sometimes you wanna whack a guy. I said it was stupid for a reason. I said it as a testament to my inability to think of an in-between weapon.
[QUOTE=Grimhound;47161461]Getting hit by a blunt object traveling at the velocity of a bullet will fuck you up. Instead of making a clean hole it'll just cause massive trauma to your internal organs. This is like saying "Oh, well a 9mm bullet will kill you, so here's a small cannon ball."[/QUOTE] "it's an advancement but it's not a good enough advancement so who cares!"
[QUOTE=Nebukadnezzer;47166522]"it's an advancement but it's not a good enough advancement so who cares!"[/QUOTE] Criticism is the road to advancement.
So I just have one question. Is there a chance of the projectile failing to launch, causing a bore obstruction or catastrophic failure? I doubt anyone would want an increased risk of their weapons turning into flying shrapnel.
Even in the ballistic gelatin the cannonball penetrated it.
Bring back the goddamn nightstick. I understand that a baton is easier to carry, but the nightstick/tonfa is a defensive fighting weapon. It is designed to let you engage at melee range against a melee armed opponent. A baton has little to no defensive capability. If the guy has a weapon other than a firearm AND you have a sufficient number of officers, you beat them into submission, you don't shoot them. People may resist a taser, but the next stop needs to be the night stick and potentially broken limbs, not fucking bullets. Especially given that handgun rounds simply don't physically have enough force to stop someone from doing anything. It is why "shooting to wound" with handgun cartridges is strongly frowned upon it doesn't do anything in the short term, and in the long term it may be just as fatal. Meanwhile if you break their arm, they are physically prevented from continuing an assault, but they will almost certainly survive and probably will heal with limited long term damage. People can resist tasers, oc spray, and even non immediately fatal gunshot wounds, but nobody outside of PCP users are going to be unphased by broken bones. It sounds barbaric, but currently we just seem to skip from taser to bullets. I'd prefer people have broken bones over getting a body bag.
What seems silly to me is that you have to take the time and forethought to decide you're going into a situation where less-than-lethal force may be needed, but if you use this device you're in that situation but left holding a firearm in a scenario where you've already decided shooting them isn't the best course of action. Introducing a loaded firearm retained only by the hands on it into a stressful situation seems less than ideal. I don't see anything inherently wrong with having it as another tool in the toolbox, as long as officers aren't hamstrung and required to use it in situations where it isn't the ideal option. [QUOTE=MuffinZerg;47164016]I would rather get shot with a bullet that penetrates right throught than one that leaves all it's energy at the impact area. Any military person will tell you the same because a bullet that spreads kinectic energy across the impact area is basically a hollow point bullet (which banned by the geneva convention for a reason).[/QUOTE] As a nitpick, the Geneva convention primarily deals with how POWs are treated. The Hague convention bans the use of hollowpoints.
Hollow point rounds are allowed for law enforcement. You'd be stupid to shoot FMJ.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;47167900]Hollow point rounds are allowed for law enforcement. You'd be stupid to shoot FMJ.[/QUOTE] But code3, I not only don't want to stop the guy I'm shooting at, I also want to shoot the innocent people behind him! How am I going to manage that with JHP rounds???
Am I correct in thinking that hollow point rounds are very dangerous to the person you're shooting at, and full metal jacket rounds are less dangerous to the person being shot but more dangerous to people in the area? Relative danger that is. It's a gun and a bullet, its still meant to kill ya :v: [editline]19th February 2015[/editline] I think "Lethality" is a more suitable word for what I'm looking for.
[QUOTE=EditOutJ;47168218]Am I correct in thinking that hollow point rounds are very dangerous to the person you're shooting at, and full metal jacket rounds are less dangerous to the person being shot but more dangerous to people in the area? Relative danger that is. It's a gun and a bullet, its still meant to kill ya :v: [editline]19th February 2015[/editline] I think "Lethality" is a more suitable word for what I'm looking for.[/QUOTE] Hollowpoint rounds flatten out upon striking an object. This increases the surface area of the round and causes it to transfer its energy into the target in return for traveling a shorter distance into the object. This makes them useless for shooting through body armor, and nearly useless for shooting through cover, but significantly more lethal against soft tissue (flesh) both because they chew a wider hole through the target and because they impart the full force of their impact on the target. So all of the energy in the round is spent doing harm to your target. Full metal jacket rounds deform a significantly smaller amount and can, depending on distance and caliber, travel entire through a person and retain enough velocity to wound other individuals. So now the round has caused a smaller wound in your target both in width (Because these FMJ rounds don't flatten or "mushroom" upon impact) and have failed to impart the full force of their momentum on the target (the more force you have, the more of a shockwave is imparted on soft tissue, creating a wound channel that is mostly temporary, but potentially very damaging). Obviously this additional penetration means they can shoot through cover and are generally more capable of defeating body armor (again, strongly dependent on caliber, distance, and the body armor class), but one can also see how shooting through objects is generally undesirable for police. I should note also that JHP rounds will still go through most residential walls, they just won't go through nearly as many.
[QUOTE=MuffinZerg;47164016] basically a hollow point bullet (which banned by the geneva convention for a reason).[/QUOTE] The difference between this and a hollow point is that a hollow point will penetrate flesh before/as it expands, creating a huge wound channel and causing hydrostatic shock. This wouldn't penetrate.
[QUOTE=GunFox;47166928]Bring back the goddamn nightstick. I understand that a baton is easier to carry, but the nightstick/tonfa is a defensive fighting weapon. It is designed to let you engage at melee range against a melee armed opponent. A baton has little to no defensive capability. If the guy has a weapon other than a firearm AND you have a sufficient number of officers, you beat them into submission, you don't shoot them. People may resist a taser, but the next stop needs to be the night stick and potentially broken limbs, not fucking bullets. Especially given that handgun rounds simply don't physically have enough force to stop someone from doing anything. It is why "shooting to wound" with handgun cartridges is strongly frowned upon it doesn't do anything in the short term, and in the long term it may be just as fatal. Meanwhile if you break their arm, they are physically prevented from continuing an assault, but they will almost certainly survive and probably will heal with limited long term damage. People can resist tasers, oc spray, and even non immediately fatal gunshot wounds, but nobody outside of PCP users are going to be unphased by broken bones. It sounds barbaric, but currently we just seem to skip from taser to bullets. I'd prefer people have broken bones over getting a body bag.[/QUOTE] Luckily the LAPD still has their night sticks.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.