4 ms·

Consider me unimpressed. First, there just isn’t a ton of energy in that “round”. They’re claiming <16J - a .22LR, the smallest common caliber, comes in at aro

Consider me unimpressed. First, there just isn’t a ton of energy in that “round”. They’re claiming <16J - a .22LR, the smallest common caliber, comes in at around 275J. This thing is substantially less powerful than many BB guns. Second, the disk shape of the projectile means that it’s going to be impossible to aim effectively. That thing is going to have significant vertical dispersion even at very short ranges. It’s a toy.

defterGoose 5y ago
| It's a toy. An extremely dangerous toy.
- Ancapistani 5y ago
  I suppose that’s fair. I’d argue it’s less dangerous than, for instance, a 5” racing quadcopter.
  - dsomers 5y ago
    I’d say 5” racing quadcopter might not be a bad home defensive weapon either. I’d probably go down if you ran it into my head at full speed.
  - tlamponi 5y ago
    > I’d argue it’s less dangerous than, for instance, a 5” racing quadcopter. Semi-related, as I looked into drones here again a bit (my last adventure was a self-build from 2011, different times): The EU thought so too, it defines the difference between toys (that you do not need to register nor have any license for) are those which develop no more than 79 joules of impact energy when dropping, which couples it automatically to the weight of the drone and the ceiling height you can/want to fly with it. The law assumes that you need to calculate at minimum 30 m of ceiling height, to avoid shops being able to sell 2.5 kg drones when you ensure while winking that you fly it at 1 m at max. So the most common variants are 250 gr. which works out at 30 m allowed ceiling height you can fly with it, at least if you're not in a restricted flight zone, like some cities and naturally airports are. https://www.easa.europa.eu/domains/civil-drones/drones-regulatory-framework-background/open-category-civil-drones https://www.easa.europa.eu/domains/civil-drones/drones-regul...
- donw 5y ago
  Not really. 16J is a slightly overpowered paintball gun.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - ReptileMan 5y ago
    It does matter what projectile is made from and it's shape. Something automatic with some good cameras and AI driven that targets only soft parts of the body could do some nice damage. Human body has amazing resistance to blunt force and lacerations. Piercing damage - very little could fuck you up very badly. Arteries, kidneys, eyes.
    - donw 5y ago
      Joules are defined as kg * (m/s)^2. Weight is already factored in. Shape does matter, though! A dart might be lethal if it hit a major artery or the heart. I'd have to do a test to see if it could punch through mass equivalent to the bones of the skull. Unsure, but I'd put money that it wouldn't. This weapon looks to fire discs, not darts. No way that's going to be a lethal round at 16J.
  - meheleventyone 5y ago
    Here’s some fatalities from guns around that power or less: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC500806/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC500806/ Muzzle energy isn’t the only factor in lethality.
    - mantaraygun 5y ago
      I'm not sure about those particular air rifles, but there are .177 and .22 caliber air rifles capable of 50J or more. A half gram .117 pellet at 1600fps is 60J. They should definitely be treated as weapons.
    - donw 5y ago
      All of the weapons indicated in that article have muzzle energies well above 16J. If the projectile was some kind of sharpened dart, 16J might be enough to be lethal in a headshot. Maybe. I'd have to do a test to see if it could punch through mass equivalent to the bones of the skull. But a disc or a ball? Unlikely. Could take out an eye, sure, but that's about it. Absolutely unsuitable as a weapon.
pg5 5y ago
I'm assuming this is a prototype and later versions will be more powerful. Have you seen the demolition ranch video for it? On max settings it was going through a medium sized pumpkin. I would not want to be on the receiving end of it. Edit: I do agree with you, I would only buy one for fun, in it's current state

defterGoose 5y ago

| It's a toy. An extremely dangerous toy.

Ancapistani 5y ago
I suppose that’s fair. I’d argue it’s less dangerous than, for instance, a 5” racing quadcopter.
- dsomers 5y ago
  I’d say 5” racing quadcopter might not be a bad home defensive weapon either. I’d probably go down if you ran it into my head at full speed.
- tlamponi 5y ago
  > I’d argue it’s less dangerous than, for instance, a 5” racing quadcopter. Semi-related, as I looked into drones here again a bit (my last adventure was a self-build from 2011, different times): The EU thought so too, it defines the difference between toys (that you do not need to register nor have any license for) are those which develop no more than 79 joules of impact energy when dropping, which couples it automatically to the weight of the drone and the ceiling height you can/want to fly with it. The law assumes that you need to calculate at minimum 30 m of ceiling height, to avoid shops being able to sell 2.5 kg drones when you ensure while winking that you fly it at 1 m at max. So the most common variants are 250 gr. which works out at 30 m allowed ceiling height you can fly with it, at least if you're not in a restricted flight zone, like some cities and naturally airports are. https://www.easa.europa.eu/domains/civil-drones/drones-regulatory-framework-background/open-category-civil-drones https://www.easa.europa.eu/domains/civil-drones/drones-regul...
donw 5y ago
Not really. 16J is a slightly overpowered paintball gun.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- ReptileMan 5y ago
  It does matter what projectile is made from and it's shape. Something automatic with some good cameras and AI driven that targets only soft parts of the body could do some nice damage. Human body has amazing resistance to blunt force and lacerations. Piercing damage - very little could fuck you up very badly. Arteries, kidneys, eyes.
  - donw 5y ago
    Joules are defined as kg * (m/s)^2. Weight is already factored in. Shape does matter, though! A dart might be lethal if it hit a major artery or the heart. I'd have to do a test to see if it could punch through mass equivalent to the bones of the skull. Unsure, but I'd put money that it wouldn't. This weapon looks to fire discs, not darts. No way that's going to be a lethal round at 16J.
- meheleventyone 5y ago
  Here’s some fatalities from guns around that power or less: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC500806/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC500806/ Muzzle energy isn’t the only factor in lethality.
  - mantaraygun 5y ago
    I'm not sure about those particular air rifles, but there are .177 and .22 caliber air rifles capable of 50J or more. A half gram .117 pellet at 1600fps is 60J. They should definitely be treated as weapons.
  - donw 5y ago
    All of the weapons indicated in that article have muzzle energies well above 16J. If the projectile was some kind of sharpened dart, 16J might be enough to be lethal in a headshot. Maybe. I'd have to do a test to see if it could punch through mass equivalent to the bones of the skull. But a disc or a ball? Unlikely. Could take out an eye, sure, but that's about it. Absolutely unsuitable as a weapon.

pg5 5y ago

I'm assuming this is a prototype and later versions will be more powerful. Have you seen the demolition ranch video for it? On max settings it was going through a medium sized pumpkin. I would not want to be on the receiving end of it. Edit: I do agree with you, I would only buy one for fun, in it's current state