has anybody designed or worked for any of these big weapon companies like colt or uzi…i guess design ergonomics are a big factor. and with the wars going on, this weapon design will be big business. i bet there will a home-line of assault weapon… the she-uzi, now available at TARGET
personlly, i’m not sure about how this new law will pan out with the people
i’ll bet we will see a lot of redesign of these things as long as the ban is lifted. any thoughts/comments ?
i sure would not like to be a cop after these things go on sale
there are ladies versions of pistols, for smaller hands and spacesavings in the handbag, but manufacturers haven’t explored the fashion aspect of it at all - I think there is plenty of room to fancy them up.
With assault rifles the designer’s canvas is just that much larger…
Although America probably is one of the largest consumers of these types of weapons they definitely aren’t on the innovative edge of their development - Germans, Austrians, Belgians, Northern Europeans in general it seems, have a lock on that:
Heckler-Koch HK G36
Although they are helping the US Army develop this:
I’m so conflicted, I know there only intent is to hurt people, but those are so freaking cool.
I did some work for a popular gun manufacturer focusing on safety, to kick it off the team got to fire about 40 diffrent products at their firing range, very scarry, but very cool. Amazing how one small finger motion and a piece of metal hutles through the air with laser like precision… like I said, cool, but very scary.
Anyone aware of particularly user-friendly and effective self-defense weapons? (Hopefully non-lethal.)
I can’t help but wonder if a design solution could minimize the interest in these assault weapons, or even automatic handguns for those people interesting in a weapon for self defense vs. sport or crime.
Tasers come to mind–but they require good aim, don’t shield you from the attacker, and can only be used once.
Interesting question, with an equally interesting answer.
“Guns don’t kill people, bullets kill people” at least thats one argument. The truth is that most standard military (NATO) rounds are not intended to kill, the exception being the US. Most NATO 556 ammunition (for personal weapons) is designed to cleanly penetrate through the target (the enemy) this usually only causes injury and not death (most of the time) the reasoning behind this is to cause non lethal casualties on the battlefield which require more man power to treat, slowing the enemies advance or retreat. The only NATO member that does adhere to this strategy is the US. The US uses the same caliber round but it is a “tumbling” round. This means it turns end over end as it travels to the target. When it enters the target it bounces around inside and kills them. I have seen a tumbling round go in through the shoulder and exit in the leg _ fu-king nasty sh-t!
i’ve noticed some realworld design work having done work with videogame devs who reference these things. but i wouldnt design a gun. not into it.
on that “tumbling” round. you sure it tumbles in-flight? would screw up accuracy. i thought the head fragged on impact deflecting pieces around inside the body. its partially why hollow points are illegal (they are still illegal - no?). i’d look up but feeling lazy…
i think a Skunk Gun would be a great self-defense weapon. imagine a mugger coming across that. there was an Electric Shock thing a while back. good luck convincing people to wear it tho.
Actually yes the round does tumble end over end and yes it does effect accuracy. the M16 is is not the most accurate of weapons in the first place. It is most effective as a unit weapon, meaning that more than one rifle is fired at the same target at the same time. M16’s are only accurate to about 200 yards however that is better than the AK47.
The round travels very well rifled towards the target. The round is smaller and of a higher velocity to penetrate personal armor and yes create wounded over killing (per say).
The evidence that the US does use the same round can be seen in Somalia when the rounds went right through the rebels and they kept fighting. That was a result of two things. The rebels being extremely skinny and also hopped up on “cot” (SP?).
The M-16 is just about the most accurate basic infantry rifle in existence capable of hitting 3ft wide 1 1/2 ft high human prone shaped targets at 500 yds. It is much more accurate than the AK-47 which is a blunderbuss comparatively and if you get hit by a 7.62 you’re going to have a bad day. It is more difficult to maintain and more expensive, however. Also not great for close quarters which is why the DOD is asking for the next generation to be modular (sniper, rifle, machine gun, compact versions).
One thing to note is that the ban expiring DOESN’T mean that civilians are allowed to buy, own, or convert to FULLY automatic weapons (one small exception with a very strict, difficult and very expensive permit). The ban only limited the make and certain aspects of a other makes such as flash suppressors, collapseable stocks, bayonet lugs.
All these people thinking that absolute mayhem will ensue are only buying into certain groups scare tactics. If the US gov really wanted to reduce gun crime they ought to crack down on gun shows were the wrong people are able to get hold of weapons. just my 2 cents.
The closest you can get nowadays is probably pepperspray with foaming /dye. But that’s only effective with someone intent on coming in contact. They won’t do anything to a gunman out of it’s range that’s intent on killing you. I don’t think the interest in these weapons is for self defense. They’re assault weapons, for taking out lots of targets/teams or specialized sniper type tools. Defensive firearms are supposed to be handguns and surprisingly shotguns from what I hear (good for homes, pellets less likely to go through walls killing others, and dispersal is good for untrained marksmans to hit target in high pressure situations).
The problem is that anything that is really effective is potentially dangerous so it’s made illegal to carry. And police don’t like those either because if it’ll work on a criminal, it’ll work on them if you decided to resist arrest. Carrying mace is illegal in lots of states, or you need a license. You can buy a stun gun in the middle of the city in Baltimore, but it’s illegal to carry one on you. You’re not supposed to carry pocketknives over a certain length.
You can’t really carry anything with potential “battle applications” because if you get stopped by police it’s completely up to their discretion as to whether they think that it’s an offensive weapon in your hands, regardless of what it’s intended purpose is (even multi-tools, etc…). It’s their choice on the field, and laws are flexible enough to let them decide pretty much whatever.
The only effective tool for self defense is one that an opponent can’t tell that you have on you, that you can get to and deploy quickly, and can stop an attacker long enough for you to escape. Police won’t let ordinary citizens carry anything like that else it would be easier to escape from them. So basically, anything you do carry that is an effective defensive weapon, you’ll most likely be carrying illegally.
Seems like the big thing is that you have to remain vulnerable to police at all times, that seems to control the laws. That’s why regular citizens can’t wear bulletproof vests. You may get it to keep from being killed by criminals, but it also makes it harder for a policeman to kill you if they deemed it necessary.
For self defense, the best you can do while staying out of trouble from the law is to get in the right martial arts classes and learn how to use improvised weapons, pens, belts, shoes, keychain flashlights, etc. Anything more dedicated and you can go to jail for it. But that’s for on your person, in home use is another deal altogether.
27, that was an interesting read, and I will have to look it up further. However the truth is that the 556 ball does “tumble” I know this because before becoming a designer I spent 10 years in the Army as both a rifleman and later weapons tech. I have seen active duty overseas and have seen first hand the result of being on the wrong end of M16.
You are correct that the M16 is one of the most accurate COMBAT rifles and as far as that goes is superior to the AK and all its variants. However, at close quarters or in extreme conditions I would far prefer the AK. The M16 does have a range of over 500 yards but it is almost impossible to accurately hit on target at that range, especially in combat. I was a marksman all throughout my military “career” and as far as I am concerned 200-300 yards was about the furthest I would feel comfortable hitting “center of mass” and having the “target” go down.
As for the Somalia incident, I had friends on that Fucked up mission. From first hand account you are correct that the rounds did go straight through the “targets”, we are not sure why exactly? I believe that it could be that the rounds were standard NATO issue (probably Canadian) and not US? i do not have an answer for that one except that the mission was screwed up even before it started and weird sh*t just seem to happen over there.
i would expect rotational momentum to decrease due to air friction. bullet would become aerodynamically unstable. that even rifled bullets tumble no surprise. just never gave thought to controlling it. the rifle bore is a constant. i suppose moving the cg aft would induce tumbling earlier in the flight. regardless of rotational momentum. makes sense to me. would like to see comparison of the bullets. maybe look that up.
enough of that. i hate guns. i literally cut up the one given to me. i’ll never own one.
I know it’s a joke, but you should be careful about that. People in Baltimore where I’m originally from were getting shot over using those super soakers. They even banned possetion of them in my high school. Some interprising and misguided young minds started filling them with drano, chlorine and different acids and dangerous things they’d swipe from science class and hardware stores and were spraying people with them. I even think police were told to assume it may be filled with a dangerous substance back then when they first came out.
Honestly, I don’t think such a weapon could exist outside of a “phasers on stun” futuristic concept. People who train in martial arts for self-defense/combat could tell you that anything could be a weapon, and often it is not necessary or even desirable to have one for self-defense (particularly b/c of legal ramifications). A weapon can become a crutch, and an untrained person with a weapon - whether it is capable of permanent damage or not - is generally not desirable since they won’t have the judgment of when to use it or not. Taking out a niftily designed self-defense tool may make the offender escalate their response, even if the batteries are dead when you go to use it…
So, awareness and proper training is more key than the tool, but something that would help create an opening for escape and attract attention wouldn’t be too awful. Something that can backfire, be neutralized or turned against you would be worst…
I have no idea were you have recieved your information, however the US uses Full Metal Jacketed bullets in both their rifles and side arms. These are designed to penetrate, and deform very little ass it passes through the target. Tumbling rounds are found in the civilian versions such and are smaller caliber than their military cousins. The only exception could be the .45 pistals if they opt to use fragmenting tips. Tumbling rounds reduce range and accuracy, neither is conducive with battle feid performance.
Ok, this is the last I am writing on this topic. I never said anything about the round deforming or fragmenting? I said the round “tumbles”! All you weekend worriers are wrong, plain and simple! As I said before I was a section commander in the Army, I taught this shit to recruits. If what I was teaching was wrong then I guess all the military training manuals are wrong, but I doubt it!
Weekend worrier? LOL Touchy, touchy. Your not the only one on here who has served. I thought my explanation would have buried that subject and didn’t require follow-ups by others concerning it. See the first link from that post.
I can assure you that members of my service had no problem hitting targets out at 500yds (eliminating the possibility that the round would tumble in flight and is inaccurate).
A > properly > stabilized bullet (that is, one spun with sufficient rotational speed by the rifling) does not tumble in flight, but may tumble upon impact with a soft target.
Tumbling on impact is a totally different effect and is characteristic of fully jacketed pointed bullets such as the .30-06 M2, 7.62 mm NATO M80, and the 5.56 mm M193/M855 military bullets and many short overall length round nose bullets.
As a historical note the original M16 had a 1:14 twist rifling which did not adequately stabilize the M193 bullet in cold weather. Tests showed that when temperatures dropped to about 32 degrees F that the bullet tumbled in flight so badly that shots could not be kept on a 100 yard target. Changing the twist to 1:12 solved this problem.