5 ms·

If such a thing can be scaled and made reliable, the implications are staggering. Imagine ammunition that fits in existing firearms and is fully self-contained

If such a thing can be scaled and made reliable, the implications are staggering. Imagine ammunition that fits in existing firearms and is fully self-contained, mixing into a viable round only when entering the chamber. And then made “smart”, such that it can be geofenced and therefore refuse to mix near schools or stadiums or government buildings, etc. If this becomes possible, then all traditional ammunition may become legislated or litigated out of existence.

throwanem 4y ago
That would require a battery, a GPS chipset, and either a sizable database or a cellular radio, in the base of every cartridge. I'm pretty sure ammo makers aren't shaking in their boots on this one.
- TylerE 4y ago
  You could probably do it with something like Bluetooth LE in the bullet. You'd need some sort of base station, worn on a belt loop or something. Binary explosives certainly exist so it should be in theory possible. Not sure how well they "scale down" though, and I don't know if any have a blast velocity low enough to be workable. I'm not a gun guy, really, outside of my interest in naval warfare. 16" shells have slightly different design params though. Actually, thinking about it more would the barrel act like a faraday cage?
  - throwanem 4y ago
    It would make considerably more sense to use standard ammunition and conditionally release the firing pin based on logic in the firearm, but to be clear this is all still well within the realm of flagrant silliness, to the point where if n-gate (pbuh) were still around this thread would probably qualify as bait.
runnerup 4y ago
Ammo is really really safe as it is. Ammo doesn’t accidentally go off. The modifications you’re talking about would go on the gun, not the ammo.
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  That "gun digitally safed" concept was tried before and pretty roundly rejected. Even electrically ignited primers were a market failure. Gun people are more paranoid than even InfoSec researchers when it comes to tech in their toys. If you truly believe your guns are for self defense, it makes a little more sense.
  - GravitasFailure 4y ago
    I haven't heard of any electrically ignited primers that made it to market, but every attempt that's gone through military trials have had abysmal reliability.
    - gao8a 4y ago
      See Remington EtronX https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qP6Q9ZEsEo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qP6Q9ZEsEo (but it obviously was a commercial failure)
      - GravitasFailure 4y ago
        Interesting. I missed that one.
    - jki275 4y ago
      The M61 Vulcan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M61_Vulcan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M61_Vulcan) in common use by the US Military for many years is electrically fired.
  - xoxxala 4y ago
    Forgotten Weapons on YouTube has a video on the Armatix iP1 "smart" pistol, the technology behind it, it's development and why it was a commercial failure.
vkou 4y ago
1. Why would you install all this into the ammo, rather than the gun? Any mechanically-inclined idiot with a garage workshop can make his own ammo. 2. Guns are a political problem, not a technological problem. If you want to reduce gun violence, ban handguns. If you want to reduce mass shootings, ban handguns and semi-automatic long guns. If you want to stop a dedicated idiot with a garage workshop from building his own pipe shotgun that he will use to execute an MLM cult leader, you can't, he's going to do that regardless.
- idiotsecant 4y ago
  I'm not sure banning semi-automatic weapons is an effective way to stop mass shootings. California has one of the most restrictive semi-automatic weapon bans in the country and it has one of the higher rates of mass shootings. That seems to be pretty good evidence that this policy is restricting people who care about the law from possessing these weapons and not the people actually committing the crimes.
  - vkou 4y ago
    California's surrounded by 49 other states, most of which have no such restrictions, and does not have any border controls with any of them. The formula of access changes substantially when you don't have opportunities for jurisdictional arbitrage. Criminals don't sit in a pentagram and magick weapons up out of thin air, they source them (legally and otherwise) from legitimate owners. A few of them are also legitimate owners, who choose to use them for crime.
    - idiotsecant 4y ago
      It would seem, then, that those surrounding states should have even higher per-capita mass shooting rates than California, given they have a higher concentration of those sorts of weapons. They don't. In fact the states surrounding California are substantially lower. It seems apparent that this strategy is both misguided and ineffective.
      - 4y ago
LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
Liquid propellant could be useful in varying the amount used per shot. In some large guns (ship guns mainly) you put bags of propellant in the gun and you're limited to whole bags. If you need a half bag you have to vary your aim to get the desired target. It sounds very difficult but might be worth it for space savings and for not having explosive ammo laying around. As for making guns stop working in certain places, why wouldn't crime just target those places? My walk home passes malls, a school, government buildings, and two stadiums. Why would I accept a defensive tool that didn't work most of the time? If we make gun ownership too onerous we risk people ignoring the law altogether - after all the risk of being injured is more serious than being caught defending yourself - which would increase the black market and aid criminals.
ThrowawayR2 4y ago
It's a little surprising to see all these replies with none of them mentioning that this discovery applies to high explosives, which aren't used in small arms ammunition. Ammunition uses propellants, which burn quickly (deflagration) but not as quickly as high explosives (detonation); the latter would burst the firearm. Therefore this discovery is unlikely to have any relevance to small arms ammunition.
- sidewndr46 4y ago
  There was at one point some research done on seeing if artillery could replace propellants with high explosive. From what I understand it concluded that is was completely impractical.

throwanem 4y ago

That would require a battery, a GPS chipset, and either a sizable database or a cellular radio, in the base of every cartridge. I'm pretty sure ammo makers aren't shaking in their boots on this one.

TylerE 4y ago
You could probably do it with something like Bluetooth LE in the bullet. You'd need some sort of base station, worn on a belt loop or something. Binary explosives certainly exist so it should be in theory possible. Not sure how well they "scale down" though, and I don't know if any have a blast velocity low enough to be workable. I'm not a gun guy, really, outside of my interest in naval warfare. 16" shells have slightly different design params though. Actually, thinking about it more would the barrel act like a faraday cage?
- throwanem 4y ago
  It would make considerably more sense to use standard ammunition and conditionally release the firing pin based on logic in the firearm, but to be clear this is all still well within the realm of flagrant silliness, to the point where if n-gate (pbuh) were still around this thread would probably qualify as bait.

runnerup 4y ago

Ammo is really really safe as it is. Ammo doesn’t accidentally go off. The modifications you’re talking about would go on the gun, not the ammo.

mrguyorama 4y ago
That "gun digitally safed" concept was tried before and pretty roundly rejected. Even electrically ignited primers were a market failure. Gun people are more paranoid than even InfoSec researchers when it comes to tech in their toys. If you truly believe your guns are for self defense, it makes a little more sense.
- GravitasFailure 4y ago
  I haven't heard of any electrically ignited primers that made it to market, but every attempt that's gone through military trials have had abysmal reliability.
  - gao8a 4y ago
    See Remington EtronX https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qP6Q9ZEsEo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qP6Q9ZEsEo (but it obviously was a commercial failure)
    - GravitasFailure 4y ago
      Interesting. I missed that one.
  - jki275 4y ago
    The M61 Vulcan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M61_Vulcan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M61_Vulcan) in common use by the US Military for many years is electrically fired.
- xoxxala 4y ago
  Forgotten Weapons on YouTube has a video on the Armatix iP1 "smart" pistol, the technology behind it, it's development and why it was a commercial failure.

vkou 4y ago

1. Why would you install all this into the ammo, rather than the gun? Any mechanically-inclined idiot with a garage workshop can make his own ammo. 2. Guns are a political problem, not a technological problem. If you want to reduce gun violence, ban handguns. If you want to reduce mass shootings, ban handguns and semi-automatic long guns. If you want to stop a dedicated idiot with a garage workshop from building his own pipe shotgun that he will use to execute an MLM cult leader, you can't, he's going to do that regardless.

idiotsecant 4y ago
I'm not sure banning semi-automatic weapons is an effective way to stop mass shootings. California has one of the most restrictive semi-automatic weapon bans in the country and it has one of the higher rates of mass shootings. That seems to be pretty good evidence that this policy is restricting people who care about the law from possessing these weapons and not the people actually committing the crimes.
- vkou 4y ago
  California's surrounded by 49 other states, most of which have no such restrictions, and does not have any border controls with any of them. The formula of access changes substantially when you don't have opportunities for jurisdictional arbitrage. Criminals don't sit in a pentagram and magick weapons up out of thin air, they source them (legally and otherwise) from legitimate owners. A few of them are also legitimate owners, who choose to use them for crime.
  - idiotsecant 4y ago
    It would seem, then, that those surrounding states should have even higher per-capita mass shooting rates than California, given they have a higher concentration of those sorts of weapons. They don't. In fact the states surrounding California are substantially lower. It seems apparent that this strategy is both misguided and ineffective.
    - 4y ago

LawTalkingGuy 4y ago

Liquid propellant could be useful in varying the amount used per shot. In some large guns (ship guns mainly) you put bags of propellant in the gun and you're limited to whole bags. If you need a half bag you have to vary your aim to get the desired target. It sounds very difficult but might be worth it for space savings and for not having explosive ammo laying around. As for making guns stop working in certain places, why wouldn't crime just target those places? My walk home passes malls, a school, government buildings, and two stadiums. Why would I accept a defensive tool that didn't work most of the time? If we make gun ownership too onerous we risk people ignoring the law altogether - after all the risk of being injured is more serious than being caught defending yourself - which would increase the black market and aid criminals.

ThrowawayR2 4y ago

It's a little surprising to see all these replies with none of them mentioning that this discovery applies to high explosives, which aren't used in small arms ammunition. Ammunition uses propellants, which burn quickly (deflagration) but not as quickly as high explosives (detonation); the latter would burst the firearm. Therefore this discovery is unlikely to have any relevance to small arms ammunition.

sidewndr46 4y ago
There was at one point some research done on seeing if artillery could replace propellants with high explosive. From what I understand it concluded that is was completely impractical.