Gyrojet guns

>>31013954
They are interesting as a curiosity but too impractical to be worthwhile.

Only to buy for collecting because it would likely end up a relic like the gyro jet.

Rocket propelled bullets just don't get enough bazonga generated to do much compared to regular smokeless cartridges.

>>31013954
Maybe if they mated it with that new EXACTO system. Basically miniature laser guided ordinance.

>>31013954
For competition shooting, if you could overcome their accuracy issues, the lack of recoil would be phenomenal.

>>31013954
Gyrojets are funny because

>shoot someone from 3 feet away and they get a bruise
>shoot someone from 50 feet away and it goes through their skull on both sides

>>31013954
Pure gyrojet is worthless outside range, you have to have at least small powder charge so it has reasonable muzzle velocity.

Instead putting it in some retarded pseudo-blowforward pistol use Dardick style open chambers.

File: #relatable.jpg (46KB, 800x705px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 800x705px

>>31013954

>>31014118
>ifunny
>>/out/

>>31013954
>$100 per round
Hahahahhaha......no.

>>31014136
did you read op?
>regular production.
how much of that price is due to its niche status. if it was under regular production it would be much lower

>>31013954
If it came into regular production and it was for a really good price, hell yeah I would get one.

Issues aside, they were made with a specific purpose in mind and that was space combat and that's what makes them badass. This is a relic from when we throught we were going to have thriving moon colonies by now, and bases on mars and maybe even Saturn's moons.

>>31013954
If combined with the exact guided bullet technology Darpa came up with it would be amazing. You could have accurate firepower in a low recoil low weight system. Imagine marines carrying aluminum heavy machine guns that shoot guided gyrojet rounds.

>>31014168
It's also a way to have caseless ammunition.

The muzzle velocity thing needs to be improved though.

>>31013954
I wish they'd spent more time working on it. The concept died out too soon for any of its potential to be reached

File: kosmonaut's kompanion.jpg (180KB, 1200x599px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 1200x599px

>>31014166
>Designed for space combat
You do know smokeless powder works in a vacuum, right?

>>31014427
Recoil dipshit.

>>31014552
Then use a .22? It's space, all you have to do is make a puncture in what you're shooting at.

>>31014427
It's the recoil. Gyrojets don't put much momentum on you at all, compared to conventional rounds that would make you spin and fly backwards.

>>31014563
Recoil is an issue even with .22 short.

>>31014563
Don't be stupid. You thought you were being a smart whitty fuckhead, but you completely neglected newtons 3rd law.

If we really start thinking about space combat, you don't think that they will develop kevlar reinforced space suits? Nevermind that .22 is going to be enough energy to throw you back anyway.

>>31014566
Yeah, they make you spin and dazzle backwards at astounding breackneck 0.02mph

>>31014566
Use a lighter projectile then. Less recoil, higher velocity and range plus more ammo for the same weight

>>31014594
So what about sustained fire in a vacuum?

Just go back to putting a tacticool stock on an SKS you faggot.

File: eighteen-point-five-millimetre-rocket-submachinegun.png (54KB, 516x271px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 516x271px

Only worthwhile if you go full 40k with the idea

>>31014166
>was space combat
yeah, no.
>>31014552
>>31014566
As we've discussed on this board countless times over the years newfags, recoil nor heat dissapation are not problems that matter in space. Only problem is lubrication.

File: astartesbolter.png (421KB, 648x670px) Image search: [Google]

421KB, 648x670px

>>31013954
>would you ever consider one
yes

>>31014563
>missing the point.
It's newtonian physics dude. Equal and opposite reactions and all that jazz.

ANY conventional firearm is going to move the firer all over the goddamn place. Orbital maneuvers are disorienting to begin with, having to counteract the dV of small arms fire would just be an extra burden in fuel costs and time

>>31014598
Do some fucking maths.
Recoil is negletiable, you can get more spin by waving your arms around.

By the time actual fighting in space becomes a god damn problem there'll be solutions to "muh spin".
Right now astronauts are just bungie jumping in 0 g.

>>31014615
If you wanna go around quoting laws of physics like you're a god damn space engineer, then go ahead, do the math.
Do the math and show us all what we allready know: That it's not an issue.
Do it on a 9mm for example.

>>31014589
That's easily solved with bullet design.

>>31014594
The thing is.. to counter that speed you need rockets or other propulsion system on yourself.

Also that is only for one round. A round that woild have enough velocity and mass to matter (probs needs more velocity than a .22 S as the distances may be long and long flight time is not a good thing).

Also I'm guessing a high ROF and volume of fire is desireable, thus making recoil even more of an issue.

>>31014622
>shoot .22 on right shoulder aiming don sights
>recoil pushes on the right side of your body and makes you spin around

It's not going to send you flying back like a rocket, but it's going to have an impact on the direction you're facing. Unless you can concentrate the recoil on your center of gravity and accurately shoot, its' going to spin you the fuck around.

If we were in a vacuum in microgravity and I pushed on your right shoulder, lightly at that, you would spin around.

>>31014666
Or you can have a second gun to stabilize

>>31014666
>>31014649
>ITT retards who have never shot a gun think shooting a .22lr is like shooting a 30mm through a pipe, nail and hammer
The rotation would be so small you'd need to free your schedule for the next few days to measure it accurately

>>31014649
Also. With a propulsion system on yourself, it would be likely that sone sort of a significant exo suit is used. And then there is no reason not to out armor on it.

And with armor you need more penetration. Meaning more speed and/or mass. Meaning more recoil.

Then again I don't see infantry combat in 0g a very realistic thing. More like very long engagements using ships and enerfy and/or kinetic weapons.
A bunch of infantry would be easy pickings with a microwave weapon fir example.

Maybe for taking over space stations, but even then it's a very special occasion.

>>31014637
Couple of cm/sec for your average spessman

Won't be an issue if you're just shooting one guy, then correcting immediately. The problem comes in a sustained gunfight, and fuel for flight corrections becomes the limiting factor.

>>31014637
>provide an acelleration, however slight, in zero gravity to your body
>you start rotating and/or gain a velocity depending on how close it was to your center of gravity
>oh, I know, I'll just kill my rotation and/or velocity by grabbing onto the spaceship
>grab onto spaceship
>spaceship has a lot of inertia
>you slow down
>ahh, much better
>go to sleep
>wake up
>look out window, expect to see earth, window is always supposed to be pointing toward earth
>instead it's pointing toward blackness
>wtf
>realize that the ship has been slowly rotating for 8 hours

Yeah guns in space are a fucking problem. You would need to spray hydrogen or something in the exact opposite directon of the force of each shot to negate it.

>>31013954
if scaled down just a bit, then fired like a conventional bullet, they would be interesting. with the rifling providing spin we could do away with the multiple small jets and go for a central unit.

>>31014677
Okay now you're just being retarded.

>>31014685
It would not be that small. You're really overlooking how this will work in a vacuum. I have shot plenty of fucking .22, and while it's negligible recoil (on earth for our purposes) it will provide enough force to completely change your orientation. Like I said if we were in zero g, and I pushed lightly on your right shoulder it would spin you backwards and clockwise. You could probably shoot it from your gut and it would only put a little momentum on you, but while under sustained fire this will add up and we're also neglecting the fact of how you won't be able to accurately fire the weapon from your pelvis/gut area. Camera sight maybe?

Rocket bullets are the way to go.

>>31014685
You can be fucking sure that something like an American-180 (.22, high ROF) in space would make you spin enough to make it an issue.
A single shot won't be an issue, but a string of shots would be as maintaining sight picture would be difficult. And even slowly spinning really doesn't help you.

>>31014666
Okay I'll make it easy for you "I think I know what shooting in space is because I've been thinking about it ever since I saw this thread" retards.
Calculate the fucking rotation speed you get from shooting a ,22lr.
Here's the data:
Spacesuit weight in apollo mission with an astronaut inside:
485 pounds
Rifle weight: 6lb
.22lr: 40gr. 1,200ft/s 104 ft lbf

Meme gun with no ammo.

>>31014710
>Yeah guns in space are a fucking problem. You would need to spray hydrogen or something in the exact opposite directon of the force of each shot to negate it.

Or wait what if there was a projectile that concentrated it's force way from and into said projectile? Maybe one that had an internal fuel source and a series of nozzles on the back to stabilize it in flight?

No let's just use .22s and add all kinds of extra shit, which also has the potential to fail at the worst time, to counter act the recoil.

>>31014710
Reaction wheels? I'm sure the ship would have some

>>31014727
Except if it's not on your center of gravity, it's going to throw you off. I'm not saying a .22 will send you flying into the fucking abyss, I'm saying a .22 will have enough recoil to act on you to change your orientation and spin you around if you are not firing it from your center of gravity.

>>31014710
>an .22lr recoil rotating an entire spaceship 180 degrees over 8 hours
You're positively retarded.
>>31014718
You also weight 500 pounds in fucking space.
You can have a thruster/gyro system on you that automatically corrects everything because it's a god damn computer.
>>31014725
Recoil is negeletiable, especially if the gun is heavy and you're extremely heavy.
But I see your point.
That's exactly why we don't give our men miniguns and rifles in .50BMG.
So yeah recoil in space is a problem if we arm our space troopers with lahtis. Therefor there's no war in space since only lahtis can be issued.
Recoil in space is not a problem.
Even with a decent calibre it's so small it's negletieble.
"muh muh sustained fire"
Yeah how about we use things that would definetly work badly, like giving all our troopers mg42's in .338 LM and order them to fire standing up.

You're just cherrypicking the wrost possible situation to make sure you are right and sound smart.
Again.
>>31014727
do the fucking math or are you so stupid you'd rather run your mouth and pretend not to be retarded or rather do some basic calculations and learn how wrong you are and become a bit smarter today.

>>31014764
Do the math.

And yeah coriolis effect affects your accuracy when you're shooting at 50 yards as well.

>>31014777
You have no weight outside of a gravity well.
You do have mass though

>>31014800
spacesuit was weighted on earth

>>31014805
Weight only matters on the ground, weirdo. There is no weight in a vacuum, only mass. Weight is a function of mass and velocity, i.e. gravity relative to the mass of a significantly more massive object.

>>31014649
Let's do some math. Let's assume a 2 gram .22 bullet with a muzzle velocity of 300 m/s. Acceleration would be 300/0.1 = 3000 m/s2 assuming it takes 1/10th of a second for the projectile to launch through the muzzle.

That means the force from a shot would be .002 kg * 3000 m/s2 = 6N.

If a spaceman and his kit weighs 100kg, the amount of corrective acceleration needed would be 6N / 100kg = .06 m/s2. That's negligible and having any drastic form of propulsion to stabilize is absolutely unnecessary.

>>31014747
That would definitely be an idea. A zero-net-acceleration gun that self stabilizes. There's a solution right there.

>>31014777
It was just an example. I think you guys underestimate how much force a .22 would have in space. For fuck's sake, you could lightly push a tennis ball away from you and start rotating just from that. Would it be dramatic rotation? No. But it would still be there.

>>31014838
Even with spaceman with way way less than half the mass of a real spaceman, the accelaration is still negletiable.
Case closed, "muh recoil" retards btfo. Can we get back on topic now

>>31014877
>>31014838
Practically no force aparrently since the spaceman in that example is more than half the weight of a real astronaut and his suit, which would cloc

>>31014777
Also, no, you don't weigh 500lbs in space, you don't weigh anything in space. Assuming you aren't in a gravity field and aren't being accelerated by anything, you weigh absolutely nothing. Zero pounds. Zero newtons. You need to retake high school physics.

>>31014897
-k in at around 250 kg.
Seriously a .22 from a target rifle has no felt recoil

>>31014901
Okay I misused weight and mass.
Still shooting a .22lr while in a 500 pound spacesuit has practically no effect on your velocity.
If I am false about that since I didn't check what I was copying, by all means go ahead and confirm that I'm a massive cocksucker by doing the maths of a guy shooting a .22lr in a 500 pound spacesuit

>>31013954
The Tsiolkovsky equation applies to normal rounds just like it does rockets. Meaning that the normal round will yield more velocity.

I can see how a combination of the two would be useful for some of those DARPA self guiding bullets.

>>31014805
And yet has no weight in space.
Just mass

>>31014877
Underestimating .22 recoil? By that logic I could probably travel to Uranus and back with a dildo.

>>31014948
you can calculate mass based on weight.

>>31014877
>I think you guys underestimate how much force a .22 would have
>go to range
>some neckbeard shooting a nugget
>after a mag stops and rubs his shoulders
>smile smugly and shoulder my .22

>>31014777
>You're just cherrypicking the wrost possible situation to make sure you are right and sound smart.

No. American 180 hardly is the "worst possible situation". It is in fact probably the lowest caliber you can even theoretically use.

Having a momentum of roughly 0,83 kgms imparted on your upper body, each shot, assuming you use a weak .22. That momentum has to be countered at some point with exactly as much momentum. This is not a benefit. Accept it.

If you shoot full auto eith something even small you're eventially going to have to correct for the spin.

>>31014883
Negligible for one shot. How about 100?

In a sustained gunfight, recoil WILL be important.

>>31014926
My point wasn't that a .22 would make you move violently, my point was that it would make you move/rotate AT ALL. Something is gonna have to stabilize that and it's not as easy as you think it is to do so.

>>31014970
>>31014968
>auto stabilising systems don't exist
>people are just gonna go to space in 2 minutes from now pick up the existing spacsuit and have a world chanigng battle
>nobody will ever RnD new technology to make firefights in space possible
>nevermind the lubrication issue, we're gonna go into space RIGHT NOW and magdump all existing stock of 7.62 from an mg3 wielded by one astronaut and then go on anonymous russian rocketry transportation webboard and confirm that some anons who were complaining about rotational velodencity in space that they were right and we'll award them nobel prizes

fuck you. Math is done in this thread, it's not a problem. If it was, and it isn't, we have solutions allready in the form of auto correction systems

>>31014993
>moving goalposts
you've lost.
I hope you adjust your sights on your pistol so you don't have to manually adjust for coriolis effect when engaging a tango at 10 yards

>>31014951
Literally, no joke, if you were out of a gravity well in space, and threw a dildo hard enough in exactly the right direction, you could realistically make it to Uranus. It would take you a long ass time, but you would make it there.

>>31014838
Oh thanks. I didn't realize a man was a round object that's mass/weight isn't distributed over 5 limbs including the head.

I don't understand why you're advocating against using rocket propelled projectiles. If we were to look at this the army way, to train soldiers to use equipment to combat against the recoil of a .22, and just to combat against it during sustained fire would be more difficult.

A rocketgun such as a gyrojet operates similar to a normal firearm in regards to user operation.

You're also overlooking armour as a factor, which a light kevlar suit would be enough to defeat a .22. Rocket ammunition is easily the best solution for an infantry type weapon in zero G.

>>31014610
I have 0 idea why this shitty franchise gets so much attention. It's all so ugly.

>>31015007
I wasn't moving the goalposts. That was my original point. "Any excess rotation or velocity (i.e. greater than zero) accrued by shooting in space would have to be accounted for and stabilized."

>>31014998
Oh great man let's spend money on fucking auto stabilizing instead of improving the projectile and weapon to impart less force on the operator.

>>31014998
Those autostabilizing systems use fuel. They're thrusters off-set from your center of mass. If you're spinning clockwise, they fire counter-clockwise. The EVA suit used on the space shuttle, the Manned Maneuvering Unit, had a maximum delta V of only 25m/s. And you can't use all of that on correcting recoil acceleration either, because you need it to turn or move.

I'm not saying it's totally insurmountable, but it's definitely very limiting.

>>31015073
Not only that but rocket ammunition is caseless, so you want have a bunch of brass floating around your face while you're shooting.

>>31013954
nothing more than a meme gun and meme caliber. Just like 300 memeout

Right, I did some math, 180cm 80kg (6ft 170lbs) fella firing a 2.6 gram (40gr.) round at 370m/s (1200ft/s) so that the muzzle is 20cm above the centre of gravity along the axis results in a rotational velocity increase of 0.02 degrees per second, this is estimating that the human body has uniform mass distribution, at 0.02 degrees per second rotation a full circle takes 5 hours

>>31015160
>Just like 300 memeout

>Being able to go suppressible with just a change of ammo

>>31013954
I'd buy one. if not just for the cool factor. I dunno if they'll ever get them to fire from a regular cartridge then ignite after taking flight at maximum velocity.

>>31015160
>meme
>meme
>meme
fucking end yourself christ