But in turn the gun is WAY less inert. I mean, you can pretty much maim and abuse a conventional gun in most any way you could imagine and at worst it won't shoot anymore (or at least would not be safe to shoot anymore).
I wouldn't want to hold a railgun that gets hit by something, though. Even if unloaded.
But in turn the gun is WAY less inert. I mean, you can pretty much maim and abuse a conventional gun in most any way you could imagine and at worst it won't shoot anymore (or at least would not be safe to shoot anymore).
I wouldn't want to hold a railgun that gets hit by something, though. Even if unloaded.
Yep, a damaged railgun could cause a lot of injuries to bystanders or the shooter.
With that said, I think few attempts have been made to ruggedize them so far and I suspect that one could be made that was far more "battlefield friendly", so to speak. Up to now they've mostly been proof-of-concept devices, but put a few good engineers on it and they could probably build a fairly robust device.
It seems like they'd be more prone to damage from knocks and drops, but that was true of the first field phones and r
There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom.
-- Robert Millikan, Nobel Prize in Physics, 1923
Smokeless powder (Score:1)
Re:Smokeless powder (Score:2)
Do railguns have any potential benefits over traditional powder-based guns?
Lots of potential benefits...
No muzzle flash, probably less noise, a potentially faster reload cycle, and the ammunition is safer, i.e. more inert.
The velocity of the round could be varied easily, and lots of different types of projectiles could be used more easily.
Re: (Score:2)
But in turn the gun is WAY less inert. I mean, you can pretty much maim and abuse a conventional gun in most any way you could imagine and at worst it won't shoot anymore (or at least would not be safe to shoot anymore).
I wouldn't want to hold a railgun that gets hit by something, though. Even if unloaded.
Re: (Score:2)
But in turn the gun is WAY less inert. I mean, you can pretty much maim and abuse a conventional gun in most any way you could imagine and at worst it won't shoot anymore (or at least would not be safe to shoot anymore).
I wouldn't want to hold a railgun that gets hit by something, though. Even if unloaded.
Yep, a damaged railgun could cause a lot of injuries to bystanders or the shooter.
With that said, I think few attempts have been made to ruggedize them so far and I suspect that one could be made that was far more "battlefield friendly", so to speak. Up to now they've mostly been proof-of-concept devices, but put a few good engineers on it and they could probably build a fairly robust device.
It seems like they'd be more prone to damage from knocks and drops, but that was true of the first field phones and r