Question...guns in a vacum?
Richard Amirault
that Vera needs oxygen to fire .. so he puts the gun in a spare space suit.
My question is .. does a conventional cartridge need oxygen to fire? I
think not .. at least *external* oxygen. Hmmm...does today's bullet
propellent include oxygen in a captive state, or is the amount of air inside
the sealed cartridge case enough?
Or, maybe the primer wouldn't fire in a vacum?
--
Richard Amirault N1JDU Boston,
MA, USA
www.erols.com/ramirault "Go Fly A Kite"
Mr Who
<rami...@erols.com> wrote:
>When Mal gets Jayne to use Vera to shoot out the airlock, Jayne tells Mal
>that Vera needs oxygen to fire .. so he puts the gun in a spare space suit.
>
>My question is .. does a conventional cartridge need oxygen to fire? I
>think not .. at least *external* oxygen. Hmmm...does today's bullet
>propellent include oxygen in a captive state, or is the amount of air inside
>the sealed cartridge case enough?
>
>Or, maybe the primer wouldn't fire in a vacum?
I don't think that the lack of oxygen would have anything to do with
if the gun would fire or not so much as would the exposure to very
cold tempretures of space would cause the gun powder and primer to
become inert as it were.
Jay G
"Richard Amirault" <rami...@erols.com> wrote ...
> When Mal gets Jayne to use Vera to shoot out the airlock, Jayne tells Mal
> that Vera needs oxygen to fire .. so he puts the gun in a spare space
suit.
>
> My question is .. does a conventional cartridge need oxygen to fire? I
> think not .. at least *external* oxygen. Hmmm...does today's bullet
> propellent include oxygen in a captive state, or is the amount of air
inside
> the sealed cartridge case enough?
>
> Or, maybe the primer wouldn't fire in a vacum?
Here's an answer from back when the episode in question first aired:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=lsbupukot71t1940qidbiiteeelgttkulh%404ax.com
-Jay
lurkinghorror
<mr....@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 18:38:50 -0500, "Richard Amirault"
> <rami...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> >When Mal gets Jayne to use Vera to shoot out the airlock, Jayne tells Mal
> >that Vera needs oxygen to fire .. so he puts the gun in a spare space suit.
> >
> >My question is .. does a conventional cartridge need oxygen to fire? I
> >think not .. at least *external* oxygen. Hmmm...does today's bullet
> >propellent include oxygen in a captive state, or is the amount of air inside
> >the sealed cartridge case enough?
I know we've all seen the Army Rangers advertisement, where the guys
quite dramatically rise out of the swamp, with their guns at ready.
However, I don't think that I have ever seen a gun fired under water,
with the possible exception of a spaghetti western or two.
> >
> >Or, maybe the primer wouldn't fire in a vacum?
>
> I don't think that the lack of oxygen would have anything to do with
> if the gun would fire or not so much as would the exposure to very
> cold tempretures of space would cause the gun powder and primer to
> become inert as it were.
After all, after the first shot, the oxygen in the suit fizzed out the
faceplate.
Regardless, the fact that they thought to put the gun in a spacesuit at
all certainly qualifies as a "Firefly" moment.
LH
--
In times like these, it helps to recall that there have always been times like
these.
-- Paul Harvey
orwell
news:271220032254598013%lurkin...@cyberbeyond.gov:
> I know we've all seen the Army Rangers advertisement, where the guys
quite dramatically rise out of the swamp, with their guns at ready.
However, I don't think that I have ever seen a gun fired under water,
with the possible exception of a spaghetti western or two.
Fire under water? No. Fire fairly easily after being submerged? Yes.
The Uzi and HK MP5 will fire with little or no difficulty after being
under water or even in mud. I saw footage of an Uzi being tested. It
was thrown about 20 feet, landed in a deep mud puddle, was pulled out,
shaken once to clear the barrel and fired.
> After all, after the first shot, the oxygen in the suit fizzed out the
faceplate.
Jayne fires several shots in very short order. As long as the O2 bottle
was cranked all the way open, oxygen was probably flowing in almost as
fast as it was flowing out through the faceplate.
lurkinghorror
<mrorwell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> lurkinghorror <lurkin...@cyberbeyond.gov> wrote in
> news:271220032254598013%lurkin...@cyberbeyond.gov:
>
> > After all, after the first shot, the oxygen in the suit fizzed out the
> faceplate.
>
> Jayne fires several shots in very short order. As long as the O2 bottle
> was cranked all the way open, oxygen was probably flowing in almost as
> fast as it was flowing out through the faceplate.
>
I would imagine oxygen would flow out of a smashed faceplate into a
vaccum at least as fast as a balloon bursting. That's faster than
anybody can pull a trigger twice?
Jay G
"lurkinghorror" <lurkin...@cyberbeyond.gov> wrote ...
> In article <Xns945F112151AEB...@206.66.12.209>, orwell
> >
> > Jayne fires several shots in very short order. As long as the O2 bottle
> > was cranked all the way open, oxygen was probably flowing in almost as
> > fast as it was flowing out through the faceplate.
> >
> I would imagine oxygen would flow out of a smashed faceplate into a
> vaccum at least as fast as a balloon bursting. That's faster than
> anybody can pull a trigger twice?
Balloons don't expel air at the same rate. A "burst" balloon typically
ends up looking split in two. However, make a pinhole through a
piece of tape on the balloon, and it slowly expels air, flying around
the room.
The spacesuit only had one hole in it. As long as the rate of air
going into the suit from the tanks was close to the rate of air
going out of the suit through the hole, I can imagine several
shots being able to fire.
-Jay
lurkinghorror
wrote:
> "lurkinghorror" <lurkin...@cyberbeyond.gov> wrote ...
> > In article <Xns945F112151AEB...@206.66.12.209>, orwell
>
> > >
> > > Jayne fires several shots in very short order. As long as the O2 bottle
> > > was cranked all the way open, oxygen was probably flowing in almost as
> > > fast as it was flowing out through the faceplate.
> > >
> > I would imagine oxygen would flow out of a smashed faceplate into a
> > vaccum at least as fast as a balloon bursting. That's faster than
> > anybody can pull a trigger twice?
>
> Balloons don't expel air at the same rate. A "burst" balloon typically
> ends up looking split in two. However, make a pinhole through a
> piece of tape on the balloon, and it slowly expels air, flying around
> the room.
Of course, there was tape on the shattered faceplate?
>
> The spacesuit only had one hole in it.
As did the balloon.
> As long as the rate of air
> going into the suit from the tanks was close to the rate of air
> going out of the suit through the hole, I can imagine several
> shots being able to fire.
>
But, see, I can imagine not. See, any kind of air flowing into a vaccum
is going to be travelling REALLY fast. It's like explosive
de-compression.
Roj
the air around it and in a vacuum would quickly overheat. Most of the
electronics boxes of the space shuttle and space station that have to
operate in a vacuum are attached to something called a "cold plate" to
carry heat away (passive cooling) or they have active coolant loops
inside connected to radiators elsewhere for dumping heat.
Maybe it was a cooling issue, but then any old mixture of gasses would
have worked; he wouldn't have needed pure oxygen. But I don't think of
Jayne as being very techincal or scientific and so he might have said
oxygen when he only needed air.
orwell
news:281220031136425538%lurkin...@cyberbeyond.gov:
> But, see, I can imagine not. See, any kind of air flowing into a vaccum
is going to be travelling REALLY fast. It's like explosive de-compression.
After Jayne fired the first shot, you got a look at the faceplate. One
bullet sized hole. It was not completely shattered. After the next 4-5
shots it was probably entirely blown out, but when he started squeezing
there was enough oxygen, but the level was dropping fast.
k
and will fire in space, or even underwater. Military rounds have a
lacquer sealer around the primer, and also around the projectile. So,
Vera would not need any suit to help her Rock-n-Roll. In the vacuum of
space, the projectile would not loose any velocity due to parasitic
drag, so MV would be the same as terminal velocity.
nightstand
reads barametric pressure to adjust range, a vacuum may cause an error,
shutting down gun. my 2 scents.
"k" <kyleNOS...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:vv1lcc2...@corp.supernews.com...
travis
> vera is a pretty advanced model, looks like it has a computer, it probably
> reads barametric pressure to adjust range, a vacuum may cause an error,
> shutting down gun. my 2 scents.
>
<sniff>hmmm...
JJ
>> reads barametric pressure to adjust range, a vacuum may cause an error,
>> shutting down gun. my 2 scents.
Not a bad notion. Personally, I go with using the space suit for Vera
as dramatic license - pure and simple. If I "lived on a space ship"
and regularly carried/used a gun, I'd want it to work in a vacuum.
But what would a barometric pressure sensor see?
"It appears to be really windy and the pressure is dropping fast - big
storm coming?" Point is I would imagine a space suit "atmo"
regulating system is pretty low flow and once a hole appears it it,
it will be hard pressed to keep up the pressure.
Then again if Vera really did use gas propelled projectiles (gunpowder
burning really fast and turning into gas - pushing bullets down a
barrel) Where did that gas go? Or is Vera a "rail gun" aka
magnetically propelled projectile weapon?
Also, where were Jayne's hands on Vera? How did he operate her?
(sounds a teeny bit dirty don't it :-)
I haven't kept up with current real space suit designs but it was my
recollection/understanding that Apollo/Skylab suits ran pure oxygen at
5-8psi. Earth air pressure is normally 14.7psi at sea level.
The people who say "gun powder doesn't need air/oxygen" are right.
Then again who knows what type of chemistry "gun powder" would have
500 years from now and used in historical reinactment firearms. :-)
FYI if you think modern firearms still use "black powder -
saltpeter/sulfur/carbon" you're about 100 years behind the times.
Something called nitrocellulose is the current "gun powder" and it
burns way cleaner and faster than black powder.
As for the operation of the automatic reloading of a semi or full auto
gun - some use gas pressure others use recoil/inertia. I would
*presume* that 14.7 psi plus or minus in ambient pressure isn't really
going to make a difference. And just because you are in a zero
gravity environment, that doesn't necessarily mean inertia stops
working.
The bit about lubricants evaporating in vacuum I liked. Supposedly in
the absence of oxygen, many metals are more prone to "self adhering"
because you can have 2 oxidation free surfaces in contact and they
will molecularly bond. Accelerated galling?
Jay a gun shooting engineer pig.
Heathen
jayj...@nadasppam-yahoo.com (JJ) had the irrepressible urge to
announce to the world:
My thoughts on operating an automatic weapon in freefall and vacuum
(amongst other things):
1. The propellant in the cartridge would not need atmospheric oxygen.
2.The oil in the push rod/piston/reload mechanism would evaporate,
cool and freeze into wax, jamming the mechanism.
3.The projectile would fly flat and straight, subject only to Coriolis
"forces".
4.The space suit, from within which Jayne fired a number of rounds
from Vera, would be initially pressurised at 5 psi with pure oxygen
but the puncture to the faceplate would quickly cause the pressure to
fall to nothing, and a cold nothing, causing the gun to sieze.
Nevertheless he should have been able to squeeze off four or five
rounds as the heat from the discharge would keep the oil liquid.
6.Since Jayne was unable to sight the barrel while Vera was inside the
spacesuit, he was effectivelt firing from the hip. He was also
approaching the target at some significant speed. This makes his
targetting of the electronic net a truly remarkable feat of
marksmanship.
7. Did you see the great arcs leaping from pole to pole of the trap
into which Firefly was headed? How did they do that? In a vacuum,
there'd be no gas to ionise and no plasma display. Obviously, this was
not the same sort of electrical arcing we are accustomed to, and some
other form of energy must have been involved.
C.O.Jones
<jayj...@nadasppam-yahoo.com> wrote:
> Also, where were Jayne's hands on Vera? How did he operate her?
> (sounds a teeny bit dirty don't it :-)
He was whispering "sweet nothings" into her audio pickup port. But NO
KISSING on the mouth. Even for Vera.
CoJ
RiffRandall
>>> vera is a pretty advanced model, looks like it has a computer, it probably
>>> reads barametric pressure to adjust range, a vacuum may cause an error,
>>> shutting down gun. my 2 scents.
>Then again if Vera really did use gas propelled projectiles (gunpowder
>burning really fast and turning into gas - pushing bullets down a
>barrel) Where did that gas go? Or is Vera a "rail gun" aka
>magnetically propelled projectile weapon?
Perhaps Vera uses a liquid fuel/air charge? The 'magazine' just holds x amount of bullets, with a propane/butane etc
resevoir in the buttstock for a computerized fuel injection set up. Variable charge settings so you could have a short
range, low recoil, high ROF submachinegun mode or a high velocity, long range, stiffer recoil low ROF rifle mode. She
would need an atmosphere to work unless she had a built in oxygen resevoir also.
jayembee
>> Balloons don't expel air at the same rate. A "burst"
>> balloon typically ends up looking split in two. However,
>> make a pinhole through a piece of tape on the balloon,
>> and it slowly expels air, flying around the room.
>
> Of course, there was tape on the shattered faceplate?
Irrelevant. A glass faceplate on a spacesuit is a lot
tougher than the skin of a balloon under pressure. Unlike
the latter, the glass faceplate doesn't need the support
of some tape to keep it from shattering after a single
bullet (or pin prick) passes through it.
>> As long as the rate of air going into the suit from
>> the tanks was close to the rate of air going out of
>> the suit through the hole, I can imagine several
>> shots being able to fire.
>>
> But, see, I can imagine not. See, any kind of air
> flowing into a vaccum is going to be travelling REALLY
> fast. It's like explosive de-compression.
And the air flowing in is going to be travelling just
as fast. The reason decompression occurs is because of
the difference in air pressure between the inside and
outside of the helmet: one atmosphere inside, zero
atmospheres outside. As the air leaves the helmet, the
internal pressure drops from one toward zero. So, the
air flowing in from the attached oxygen tank is going
to flow into the helmet just as fast (perhaps even faster,
since the pressure inside the tank is considerably more
than one atmosphere) as the air in the helmet is flowing
outside.
Consider the scene toward the end of ALIENS, when Ripley
opens the Sulaco's cargo bay hatch. The air is getting
sucked out of the cargo bay -- and creating a pretty
fierce wind while doing so -- but Ripley and Newt don't
die immediately from explosive decompression because there
is just as much air being sucked *into* the cargo bay from
other parts of the ship as there is getting sucked out of
the cargo bay through the hatch.
(This is, of course, aside from the fact that explosive
decompression isn't the killer that popular belief would
have it. A person exposed to vacuum would lose consciousness
after about a minute or so due to oxygen deprivation, and
then die, but not from explosive decompression, boiling
blood, freezing, or any of the popular "myths" of vacuum
exposure.)
-- jayembee
Accipiter
news:3fee180e$0$4754$61fe...@news.rcn.com...
> When Mal gets Jayne to use Vera to shoot out the airlock, Jayne tells Mal
> that Vera needs oxygen to fire .. so he puts the gun in a spare space
suit.
>
> My question is .. does a conventional cartridge need oxygen to fire? I
> think not .. at least *external* oxygen. Hmmm...does today's bullet
> propellent include oxygen in a captive state, or is the amount of air
inside
> the sealed cartridge case enough?
>
> Or, maybe the primer wouldn't fire in a vacum?
>
Modern cartridges are sealed to prevent water from ruining the gunpowder,
and I can think of no reason why that seal shouldn't be good enough to
withstand a vacuum. In a modern gun, when the bullet is fired down the
barrel, it fits so tightly that there is a seal that prevents any new
oxygen from being introduced to the combustion, therefore, there must be
enough oxygen contained within the cartridge to combust and fire the bullet
down the barrel. Proof of this is the fact that guns can be fired
underwater, the best example of this being the powehead, an anti-shark
device which is a spear with a head that fires a bullet when you strike it
against the shark. I have an issue of The Punisher Armory comic book in
which the writer recounts an article in Soldier of Fortune Magazine where
they tested the firing handguns underwater, they said they work fine as
long as you let the barrel fill with water before you fire it.
Now, that said, it would be easy to just say they were wrong about guns in
a vacuum, and we should just move on and ignore their gaffe. But, there is
a possible way in which you *could* reconcile the actual line with that
particular gun not working. Recall, what Jayne says exactly is, "She needs
oxygen around her to fire." Vera is obviously a gas operated
semi-automatic, so my theory is that without air in the gas piston chamber,
it *might* be like trying to work a hydraulic pump without fluid, and
therefore the action wouldn't cycle after the first shot (I'm not certain
if that is true or not). Of course he could manually reload it by racking
the slide, but at the speed they were travelling, he must have been worried
about the possibility of missing with his first shot and didn't want to
waste time with it.
And if you didn't understand all that babble about the operation of the
gun, you can read this:
http://people.howstuffworks.com/machine-gun4.htm
BTW, Vera fires some seriously huge ammunition. Looks like 20mm Cannon
bullets on a shorter cartridge.
--
Ron Payne
I'm not a gun nut, I just play one on USENET.
Jay Hova
<jayembe...@snurcher.com> wrote:
> As the air leaves the helmet, the
> internal pressure drops from one toward zero. So, the
> air flowing in from the attached oxygen tank is going
> to flow into the helmet just as fast (perhaps even faster,
> since the pressure inside the tank is considerably more
> than one atmosphere) as the air in the helmet is flowing
> outside.
So spacesuits, unlike diving gear, would NOT have air regulators? Seems
like a step backwards, sort of the way a lot of "Military in the
Future" movies use WW2 technology?
JayHova
--
Conceit is God's gift to little men.
-- Bruce Barton
jayembee
> jayembee <jayembe...@snurcher.com> wrote:
>
>> As the air leaves the helmet, the internal pressure drops
>> from one toward zero. So, the air flowing in from the
>> attached oxygen tank is going to flow into the helmet
>> just as fast (perhaps even faster, since the pressure
>> inside the tank is considerably more than one atmosphere)
>> as the air in the helmet is flowing outside.
>
> So spacesuits, unlike diving gear, would NOT have air
> regulators?
Where did I suggest that? Wouldn't you assume, given the
circumstances, that Jayne would keep the valve open for
the express purpose of keeping a regular air flow into
the helmet?
-- jayembee
Jay Hova
The valve IS an air regulator. It regulates the amount of air it lets
in. And a regulator controlled flow would "flow regular" and not
necessarily speed up the flow, just because it was flowing into a
vaccum. Just my opinion, not being an expert on futuristic space suit
design, mind you.
JH
proton49
"destination" volume to some pre-selected or adjustable reference, with
the pressure in the "source" volume being vastly greater than either, and
adjusts the flow according to that difference. As the pressure in the
destination volume moves lower than the reference, the regulator gradually
opens the orifice until, at some point, the orifice will fully open and
the flow will be at maximum. That point may or may not occur before the
destination volume reaches zero pressure, in which case going lower that
point won't increase the flow. But if the regulator is a flow regulator
rather than a pressure type, the flow would attempt to remain the same
regardless of the pressure difference (within the confines of physics, of
course - for every value of destination/source differential there's a
maximum flat-out flow). A simple valve doesn't regulate - its flow will
vary with the pressure differential, with maximum flow occurring when the
destination volume is effectively at vacuum and gradually slowing as the
pressure rises.
regards -
nightstand
with a 6th grade edukation, since he never fired it in a vacuum, he thinks
it can't. p.s. -- video feeed thru scope, doesn't have to hold it
conventionally, good for shooting around corners.
"Accipiter" <accip...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bt48i2$344ec$1...@ID-15366.news.uni-berlin.de...
Buster Crab
Guns in a Vacuum!
Modern gun power had the oxidizer in the power. It will burn in a
vacuum just fine!!!!!!!!!!!
Buster Crab
will burn just fine in a vacuum. Rifling the projectile is
unnecessary due to absence of air.
They destroyed a perfectly good environmental suit for no reason.
IOW, fire away!
Buster Crab
William Travis
"Buster Crab" <trou...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:94c200djkc6mmbrtf...@4ax.com...
the shells would work in a vacuum, or he may have juist not trusted his life
to the science.
lurkinghorror
<the...@charter.net> wrote:
OR, maybe these futuristic weapons work differently. Perhaps even a
"safety feature" regulated into civilian ammo by the Alliance. That
could certainly happen..
Mark Healey
<lurkin...@cyberbeyond.gov> wrote:
> In article <1002stl...@corp.supernews.com>, William Travis
> <the...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> > "Buster Crab" <trou...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:94c200djkc6mmbrtf...@4ax.com...
> > > Modern gun powder contains the oxidizer to increase its burn rate. It
> > > will burn just fine in a vacuum. Rifling the barrel to stabilize the
> > > projectile is unnecessary due to absence of air.
> > >
> > > They destroyed a perfectly good environmental suit for no reason.
> > >
> > > IOW, fire away!
> > Yes but remember that Jayne is no rocket scientist, he may have not known
> > the shells would work in a vacuum, or he may have juist not trusted his life
> > to the science.
> >
> >
> OR, maybe these futuristic weapons work differently. Perhaps even a
> "safety feature" regulated into civilian ammo by the Alliance. That
> could certainly happen..
Most likely the writer of the show didn't know that the powder
contained the oxidizer, but knew that combustion needs air (like me).
If you fret over little details like this you will never enjoy any
SciFi.
--
Mark Heaely
marknews(at)healeyonline(dot)com
Jay Hova
<VP2SpNyJrzMZ-p...@adsl-63-207-135-60.dsl.sndg02.pacbell.net>
, Mark Healey <d...@spammer.die> wrote:
> but knew that combustion needs air (like me).
>
> If you fret over little details like this you will never enjoy any
> SciFi.
Isn't that the truth. Incredibly enough, people are perfectly willing
to accept that guns go "POP," cop cars ALWAYS slide around corners, and
cars ALWAYS burst into flames on crashing. It's called suspension of
dis-belief. (Hollywood is NOT an acurate depection of reality.)
JayHova
nightstand
from the barrel, how did the gun ever hit it's target? take at least 2
shots, one to break the glass.
"Jay Hova" <Omega...@BeyondEternity.gov> wrote in message
news:120120040942459062%Omega...@BeyondEternity.gov...
Jay G
> the biggest problem hasn't been addressed yet, with the angle if the
> glass from the barrel, how did the gun ever hit it's target? take at
> least 2 shots, one to break the glass.
Jayne fired off at least 5.
-Jay
Buster Crab
Like space ships that bank. Or, the rumbling sound when another space
ship passes by....
However, since the writers put the gun in an environmental suit, they
were attempting to simulate reality. They failed.
Richard Amirault
> Isn't that the truth. Incredibly enough, people are perfectly willing
> to accept that guns go "POP," cop cars ALWAYS slide around corners,
And the tires even squeal on dirt, too! (Dukes of Hazard)
> and cars ALWAYS burst into flames on crashing.
And shooting bullets into a gas tank make them explode (not!)
> It's called suspension of dis-belief. (Hollywood is NOT an acurate
depection of reality.)
--
NoBody
<trou...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
Or they were attempting a "cinematic moment." Of something happening
500 years in the future. I'm imagining two reasonable citizens of the
year 1503 looking at a Hollywood movie:
"Look at that! Everyone KNOWS that people will never fly! Science has
proven that a human body could never travel faster than 20 miles an
hour without exploding!"
"and they want us to believe such things could happen? What do they
take us for, 12th century morons?"
"Yep, they sure failed to show us a realistic scientific future!"
0+
Heathen
<rami...@erols.com> had the irrepressible urge to announce to the
world:
>"Jay Hova" <Omega...@BeyondEternity.gov> wrote
>> Isn't that the truth. Incredibly enough, people are perfectly willing
>> to accept that guns go "POP," cop cars ALWAYS slide around corners,
>
>And the tires even squeal on dirt, too! (Dukes of Hazard)
.. and ricochets always whine, even when fired from a non-rifled
weapon.
Al Gore
<Dros...@Hotmail.com> wrote:
And ricochets in places where there is absolutely NOTHING for them to
bounce off of.
Algore
Accipiter
news:130120041447192199%usenet0...@arpanet.com...
And slides don't lock back on semiautomatic pistols when they are empty.
--
Ron Payne
Hank Tiffany
> and
> cars ALWAYS burst into flames on crashing.
I knew a guy who was spending his life in a wheelchair because of
that one. Bystanders hauled him out of a wreck because they 'knew'
it would burst into flames at any second. Turned a spinal injury
that *could* have been treated into paraplegia. From what I've
heard from cops/firemen/paramedics this occurs often.
Hank
--
Hitler, he only had one ball/Goering, had two but they were small
Himmler, was very simmlar/But poor old Goebbels had no balls at all
Mark Healey
<trou...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 16:33:54 GMT, Jay Hova
> <Omega...@BeyondEternity.gov> wrote:
>
> >In article
> ><VP2SpNyJrzMZ-p...@adsl-63-207-135-60.dsl.sndg02.pacbell.net>
> >, Mark Healey <d...@spammer.die> wrote:
> >
> >> but knew that combustion needs air (like me).
> >>
> >> If you fret over little details like this you will never enjoy any
> >> SciFi.
> >
> >Isn't that the truth. Incredibly enough, people are perfectly willing
> >to accept that guns go "POP," cop cars ALWAYS slide around corners, and
> >cars ALWAYS burst into flames on crashing. It's called suspension of
> >dis-belief. (Hollywood is NOT an acurate depection of reality.)
> >
> >JayHova
>
> Like space ships that bank.
I can see a reason for that.
Whatever they are supposed to use to counteract Newtons first law
might not be 100%. It would probably be more confortable for the
pilot if he felt pushed down into the seat instead to one side or
another, for psychological reasons more than anything else.
--
Mark Heaely
marknews(at)healeyonline(dot)com
Keith Willshaw
"Mark Healey" <d...@spammer.die> wrote in message
news:VP2SpNyJrzMZ-p...@adsl-63-207-135-60.dsl.sndg02.pacbell.net...
Trouble is the manoeuvre makes no sense in a space environment.
In atmosphre you have to keep the bow pointed in roughly
the same direction as you are travelling. That means with
fixed guns you need to change the direction of travel to aim
and you do this by banking the vessel.
In space you can simply turn the craft on its axis continuing
to fire as you pass the target never needing to lose lock.
Indeed as you pass you can use the engines to slow you
to match velocities. The only TV show to really show this
properly has been Babylon5
Keith
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Heathen
<keith...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> had the irrepressible urge to
announce to the world:
<snipped>
>In space you can simply turn the craft on its axis continuing
>to fire as you pass the target never needing to lose lock.
>Indeed as you pass you can use the engines to slow you
>to match velocities. The only TV show to really show this
>properly has been Babylon5
>
I remember gettring some killer shots in using this tactic on a very
early Atari game.
I liked the FX on B5 for the attempt they made to be practical, as you
described. I disliked Start Wars for the banking turns, the
absurdly-shaped spaceships but I was willing to suspend my dislbelief
for the sake of a pretty well-told story.
William George Ferguson
<keith...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Mark Healey" <d...@spammer.die> wrote in message
>news:VP2SpNyJrzMZ-p...@adsl-63-207-135-60.dsl.sndg02.pacbell.net...
>> On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 00:26:32 UTC, Buster Crab
>> <trou...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>
>>
>> I can see a reason for that.
>>
>> Whatever they are supposed to use to counteract Newtons first law
>> might not be 100%. It would probably be more confortable for the
>> pilot if he felt pushed down into the seat instead to one side or
>> another, for psychological reasons more than anything else.
>>
>
>Trouble is the manoeuvre makes no sense in a space environment.
>
>In atmosphre you have to keep the bow pointed in roughly
>the same direction as you are travelling. That means with
>fixed guns you need to change the direction of travel to aim
>and you do this by banking the vessel.
>
>In space you can simply turn the craft on its axis continuing
>to fire as you pass the target never needing to lose lock.
>Indeed as you pass you can use the engines to slow you
>to match velocities. The only TV show to really show this
>properly has been Babylon5
Since the Serenity has no ship to ship weaponry, it has no need to keep a
target lock. The reason given above for banking has to do with vector
forces. I don't think they really apply since the Serenity clearly has
artificial gravity working, and it applies in a direction different from
the vector force of acceleration, and from external gravity. (the gravity
inside the Serenity is always ceiling to deck, even when it's upside down
in atmosphere [see the 'Crazy Ivan'], while the acceleration vector goes
nose to tail)
--
"Oh Buffy, you really do need to have
every square inch of your ass kicked."
- Willow Rosenberg
Jay G
> (the gravity inside the Serenity is always
> ceiling to deck, even when it's upside down
> in atmosphere [see the 'Crazy Ivan'],
The Crazy Ivan didn't flip Serenty, it rotated it.
Serenity stayed upright the whole time.
-Jay
Jay G
> On or around Thu, 15 Jan 2004 11:54:58 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
> <keith...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> had the irrepressible urge to
> announce to the world:
>
> <snipped>
>> In space you can simply turn the craft on its axis continuing
>> to fire as you pass the target never needing to lose lock.
>> Indeed as you pass you can use the engines to slow you
>> to match velocities.
>>
> early Atari game.
That'd probably be ASTEROIDS.
-Jay
Jay G
>
> Trouble is the manoeuvre makes no sense in a space environment.
>
> In atmosphre you have to keep the bow pointed in roughly
> the same direction as you are travelling. That means with
> fixed guns you need to change the direction of travel to aim
> and you do this by banking the vessel.
>
> In space you can simply turn the craft on its axis continuing
> to fire as you pass the target never needing to lose lock.
> Indeed as you pass you can use the engines to slow you
> to match velocities. The only TV show to really show this
> properly has been Babylon5
1) Serenity has no guns.
2) Serenity is designed to travel in the atmosphere as well.
In fact, all the banking moves that I recall happened while
in atmo. The crazy turn the ship did at the beginning of
"Serenity" didn't seem to affect internal gravity at all.
Also, in "The Message," Kaylee mentions the shift
from ship gravity to planet gravity while in the atmosphere
of a planet.
-Jay
Accipiter
news:100eaur...@corp.supernews.com...
A good, quick Asteroids Java applet:
http://www.gzaz.com/Javasteroids/
--
Ron Payne
RiffRandall
>Al Gore <usenet0...@arpanet.com> wrote in message
>> >"Richard Amirault" had the irrepressible urge to announce to the world:
>> > >"Jay Hova" <Omega...@BeyondEternity.gov> wrote
>> > >> Isn't that the truth. Incredibly enough, people are perfectly willing
>> > >> to accept that guns go "POP," cop cars ALWAYS slide around corners,
>> > >And the tires even squeal on dirt, too! (Dukes of Hazard)
>> > .. and ricochets always whine, even when fired from a non-rifled
>> > weapon.
>> And ricochets in places where there is absolutely NOTHING for them to
>> bounce off of.
>And slides don't lock back on semiautomatic pistols when they are empty.
Bullets always seem to throw big sparks when hitting solid objects, even lead shotgun pellets.
Shooting the gas tank of a vehicle always sets it on fire, even if it's diesel powered.
After firing full auto assault rifles, machineguns & shotguns inside a small enclosed area nobody suffers hearing loss
at all.
Silencers make a gunshot sound like a cat's sneeze, even when mounted on a revolver.
Shooting somebody with a shotgun makes them fly back thru the air several feet, even though the shooter doesn't move
back one inch from recoil.
Jago MacSchwartz Pennis
wrote:
> After firing full auto assault rifles, machineguns & shotguns inside a small
> enclosed area nobody suffers hearing loss
> at all.
WHAT?! WHAT DID YOU SAY?!
>
> Silencers make a gunshot sound like a cat's sneeze, even when mounted on a
> revolver.
(silencers DO NOT work on revolvers in the real world)
>
> Shooting somebody with a shotgun makes them fly back thru the air several
> feet, even though the shooter doesn't move
> back one inch from recoil.
>
The famous "recoilless shotgun." A GREAT weapon. How about those
automatics where they still go "click" after they are out of ammo,
because the director wanted to show that the character REALLY wanted
the victim dead?
--Jago
Leonardo DaVinci
There is a really good use of this idea, but with realism, at the end
of The Outlaw Josie Wales, where Clint fires all three of his empty
revolvers, click click click, one after another, at Captain Redlegs.
Realistic because you can do that with revolvers, and it showed just
how much he hated the man.
RiffRandall
>wrote:
>> After firing full auto assault rifles, machineguns & shotguns inside a small
>> enclosed area nobody suffers hearing loss
>> at all.
>WHAT?! WHAT DID YOU SAY?!
I will give credit to "Blackhawk Down" in that the soldier whose buddy capped off a burst of machinegun fire close to
his head spent the rest of the movie deaf.
Bonus points for showing that getting pelted with hot brass (raining down from an overhead helo mounted minigun) is not
fun....
and shouldering your rifle, using the sights & firing semiauto or short full auto bursts (US troops) works much better
than hip shooting, hold the trigger down full auto spray & pray (skinnies).
>> Silencers make a gunshot sound like a cat's sneeze, even when mounted on a
>> revolver.
>(silencers DO NOT work on revolvers in the real world)
except on old Russian gas seal M1895 Nagant revolvers (don't have a suppressor but do have a Nagant in the collection)
>> Shooting somebody with a shotgun makes them fly back thru the air several
>> feet, even though the shooter doesn't move
>> back one inch from recoil.
>The famous "recoilless shotgun." A GREAT weapon.
And you always have to rack the slide loudly giving away your position or waisting precious time. Nobody ever chambers
a shell in advance & engages the safety, they'll bust thru the window, etc do a roll/tumble & THEN rack the shotgun
slide when facing the badguy. Or repeatedly rack the slide for intimidation value....when in actuality they'd be
emptying the magazine by 1 shell each time.
>How about those
>automatics where they still go "click" after they are out of ammo,
>because the director wanted to show that the character REALLY wanted
>the victim dead?
A double action semiauto pistol (Beretta 92, SIG, S&W 59, P38, PPK) no problem. I've seen shows where there will be
multiple 'clicks' with a empty Glock (stiker must be reset by cycling the slide) or single action auto (hammer must be
thumbed back, Colt M1911) along with the usual "snick' when they take the Glock safety off.....(no manual safety )
Jago MacSchwartz Pennis
wrote:
>
> >The famous "recoilless shotgun." A GREAT weapon.
>
> And you always have to rack the slide loudly giving away your position or
> waisting precious time. Nobody ever chambers
> a shell in advance & engages the safety, they'll bust thru the window, etc
> do a roll/tumble & THEN rack the shotgun
> slide when facing the badguy. Or repeatedly rack the slide for intimidation
> value....when in actuality they'd be
> emptying the magazine by 1 shell each time.
Actually, didn't Book do that in one episode of Firefly?
Jago
Hank Tiffany
No, he just chambered the 1st round. Before they linked up with
Niska's station too. Unless he was trying to intimidate Jayne?
JJ
>And slides don't lock back on semiautomatic pistols when they are empty.
If you're saying this is true, I have to disagree - it depends on the
specific type of pistol.
The slide does lock back on some (I would say most) pistols after the
last round is fired.
I've always found this to be an interesting design decision.
I guess most gun designers figure most users are better served by
getting a clear indication that you are out of ammo even though if the
person(s) you are shooting at will also know if they are close enough
to see.
Jay
Accipiter
news:4013e352....@news2.flex.com...
Can you name one that doesn't? The main reason for it is to facilitate
faster reloading. Eject the empty magazine, insert a fresh one, click the
lever on the side with your thumb to release the lock and close the slide,
then start firing away.
--
Ron Payne
RiffRandall
>JJ <jayj...@nadasppam-yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >And slides don't lock back on semiautomatic pistols when they are empty.
>> If you're saying this is true, I have to disagree - it depends on the
>> specific type of pistol.
>> The slide does lock back on some (I would say most) pistols after the
>> last round is fired.
>> I've always found this to be an interesting design decision.
>> I guess most gun designers figure most users are better served by
>> getting a clear indication that you are out of ammo even though if the
>> person(s) you are shooting at will also know if they are close enough
>> to see.
>Can you name one that doesn't? The main reason for it is to facilitate
>faster reloading. Eject the empty magazine, insert a fresh one, click the
>lever on the side with your thumb to release the lock and close the slide,
>then start firing away.
A lot of the tiny pocket auto pistols don't have a slide lock. Taurus PT22 & PT25 & the Beretta originals they're
copied from, the misc Raven/Davis/Lorcin/Jennings pot-metal cheapo pistols, the Mark 1 version of the Ruger .22 target
pistol.....
And there are more than a few pistols that have an internal slide release rather than a exterior lever. The Walther PP,
PPK, P38, the Cz52, etc. After inserting a new mag you have to pull the slide back slightly to release the slide lock..
A bolt/slide hold open & an exterior release lever/button are on the 'nice to have' but do add more parts & complexity.
Sometimes simple with few bells & whistles is best.
JJ
>JJ <jayj...@nadasppam-yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> "Accipiter" <accip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >And slides don't lock back on semiautomatic pistols when they are empty.
>>
>> If you're saying this is true, I have to disagree - it depends on the
>> specific type of pistol.
>>
>> The slide does lock back on some (I would say most) pistols after the
>> last round is fired.
>> Jay
>
>Can you name one that doesn't?
>Ron Payne
Whoa Ron! It sounds like we're both on the same side of the fence -
that most slides do lock back.
I wonder if Vera is open breech or closed breech - I shall have to
utilize the miracle that is DVD frame by frame slo-mo. :-)
Jay
Accipiter
> "Accipiter" <accip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >Can you name one that doesn't?
> >Ron Payne
>
> Whoa Ron! It sounds like we're both on the same side of the fence -
> that most slides do lock back.
>
It was an honest question that RiffRandall answered. Sorry if it came off
sounding confrontational.
--
Ron Payne
Accipiter
news:rjcm005n65lrmaki0...@4ax.com...
PT22 & PT25 & the Beretta originals they're
> copied from, the misc Raven/Davis/Lorcin/Jennings pot-metal cheapo
pistols, the Mark 1 version of the Ruger .22 target
> pistol.....
>
> And there are more than a few pistols that have an internal slide release
rather than a exterior lever. The Walther PP,
> PPK, P38, the Cz52, etc. After inserting a new mag you have to pull the
slide back slightly to release the slide lock..
> A bolt/slide hold open & an exterior release lever/button are on the
'nice to have' but do add more parts & complexity.
> Sometimes simple with few bells & whistles is best.
>
I figured if there were any, they would mostly be oldies or cheapies. ;-)
--
Ron Payne
Hank Tiffany
> "Accipiter" <accip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >And slides don't lock back on semiautomatic pistols when they are empty.
>
> If you're saying this is true, I have to disagree - it depends on the
> specific type of pistol.
No, he is saying that it doesn't happen in follywood epics. This was
part of a long list of ways in which teevee/movie stuff almost always
gets it wrong (cars blowing up, tires squealing on dirt, etc, etc)
The King of all Londinum Wearing a Shiny Hat
news:4003492a$0$6734$61fe...@news.rcn.com...
> And the tires even squeal on dirt, too! (Dukes of Hazard)
And spinning a revolver's cylinder goes 'clickity-clickity-click'.
And, looking straight at the cylinder of a revolver pointed at you, you
can't see whether then next chamber is loaded or not by spotting the round
through the aperture in the front of the cylinder.
And you can hit a moving opponent at 100 feet, with a pistol, firing from
the hip.
And shooting the monitor destroys a computer.
And you can plant a undetectable virus in a computer created by an alien
race.
lurkinghorror
King of all Londinum Wearing a Shiny Hat <nom...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> "Richard Amirault" <rami...@erols.com> wrote in message
> news:4003492a$0$6734$61fe...@news.rcn.com...
> > And the tires even squeal on dirt, too! (Dukes of Hazard)
> > And shooting bullets into a gas tank make them explode (not!)
>
>
> And spinning a revolver's cylinder goes 'clickity-clickity-click'.
>
> And, looking straight at the cylinder of a revolver pointed at you, you
> can't see whether then next chamber is loaded or not by spotting the round
> through the aperture in the front of the cylinder.
A friend of mine had an illegal sawed-off shotgun pointed at him once.
Afterwards, he said he could see down the barrel and it wasn't loaded,
so he wasn't REALLY scared...
>
> And you can hit a moving opponent at 100 feet, with a pistol, firing from
> the hip.
>
> And shooting the monitor destroys a computer.
Here's hoping that the Feds believe that...
>
> And you can plant a undetectable virus in a computer created by an alien
> race.
>
With a Macintosh Powerbook. That could happen! ;o)
LH
--
In times like these, it helps to recall that there have always been times like
these.
-- Paul Harvey
Richard Amirault
> And spinning a revolver's cylinder goes 'clickity-clickity-click'.
>
> And, looking straight at the cylinder of a revolver pointed at you, you
> can't see whether then next chamber is loaded or not by spotting the round
> through the aperture in the front of the cylinder.
Hmmm .. actually you *can* often see if the 'next chamber' is loaded.
Depends a lot on the length of the cartridge. For instance a 38 Special
loaded in a 357 Maginum will be set farther back than a 357 in the same gun.
The problem is knowing FOR SURE which way the cylinder is going to turn when
the trigger is pulled.
>
(snip)
> And shooting the monitor destroys a computer.
No .. but shooting the hard drive certainly will ;-)
AND ... drawing a sword, even from a leather scabbard, always gives a 'metal
on metal' sound.
--
Richard Amirault N1JDU Boston,
MA, USA
www.erols.com/ramirault "Go Fly A Kite"
Daniel Prince
>Modern gun powder contains the oxidizer to increase its burn rate. It
>will burn just fine in a vacuum. Rifling the barrel to stabilize the
>projectile is unnecessary due to absence of air.
That is what I thought at first but then it occurred to me that the gun
might have a problem with what is called "vacuum welding". Without air
to keep them apart, some metals will just sort of weld themselves
together.
--
Most patients think a diagnosis is when an MD takes as much time as
necessary to figure out exactly what is wrong with the patient's body.
Most MD's think it is doing running a few tests and then telling the
patient that their illness is imaginary.
Tim McDaniel
Daniel Prince <neut...@comcast.net> wrote:
>That is what I thought at first but then it occurred to me that the gun
>might have a problem with what is called "vacuum welding". Without air
>to keep them apart, some metals will just sort of weld themselves
>together.
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=EI3Jr0.9Bz%25spenford%40zoo.toronto.edu>
is from Henry Spencer, a space expert.
The incidence of cold welding, aka vacuum welding, is greatly
exaggerated. It afflicts only some metals and rarely occurs
unless other problems are also present (e.g., inadequate
lubrication for sliding surfaces). The Lockheed Space Materials
Handbook (1969) says that as of its publication date, there were
no known cases of *unintentional* cold welding in space.
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=HBJsK2.I76%40spsystems.net>,
from last October, has
From: Henry Spencer (he...@spsystems.net)
Subject: antenna deployment (was Re: The Shuttle and the
Hubble-Repair Myth)
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy, sci.space.shuttle
Date: 2003-03-10 12:40:19 PST
In article <3e6c2020$1...@news.greatbasin.net>,
Duncan <us...@example.net> wrote:
>> BTW: antenna deployment seems to be an (apparently simple)
>> operation with a very high failure rate. Does anybody have a
>> clue why?
>
>It's very dificult to get lubricants to work in a space
>evironment.
True in general -- vacuum lubrication is a tricky business --
although the matter is now well enough understood that simple
mechanisms have a high probability of working properly if designed
carefully.
>Metals can also "vacuum weld" themselves together when there is
>no air to keep the surfaces slightly separate.
This is basically a myth. There have been *no* documented cases
of this occurring except when people were deliberately trying to
make it happen, and then it took a great deal of effort.
No spacecraft anomalies have been attributed to vacuum welding
since 1966, when it was still thought to be a serious issue. Most
of the problems attributed to it earlier are now thought to have
been the result of galling, due to inadequate, improper, or
migrated lubrication.
No vacuum welding was found anywhere on LDEF (5-3/4 years in
space). All apparent cases of it, when investigated carefully,
were really galling during installation or removal.
(Stainless-steel fasteners, in particular, gall very easily.)
--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com; tm...@us.ibm.com is my work address
GAlan
news:0fvk00h4nbhalvtur...@4ax.com:
> On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 16:16:54 GMT, Jago MacSchwartz Pennis
> <Hilla...@alphaville.gov> wrote:
>>In article <9nji00lltp2o1bqbv...@4ax.com>, RiffRandall
>>wrote:
> I will give credit to "Blackhawk Down" in that the soldier whose buddy
> capped off a burst of machinegun fire close to his head spent the rest
> of the movie deaf. Bonus points for showing that getting pelted with
> hot brass (raining down from an overhead helo mounted minigun) is not
> fun....
> and shouldering your rifle, using the sights & firing semiauto or
> short full auto bursts (US troops) works much better than hip
> shooting, hold the trigger down full auto spray & pray (skinnies).
I've seen a US Marine (a rather large fellow) whip an M-60 up to his
shoulder and snap shoot it accurately. Firing one from the hip is a
great way to hit anything other than what you want to hit, as well as
beating up your self from the recoil.
>>> Silencers make a gunshot sound like a cat's sneeze, even when
>>> mounted on a revolver.
>
>>(silencers DO NOT work on revolvers in the real world)
>
> except on old Russian gas seal M1895 Nagant revolvers (don't have a
> suppressor but do have a Nagant in the collection)
Very nifty concept on those. As the trigger is pulled, the cylinder
slides forward to mate with a cone on the breech of the barrel.
The limitation is that only semi-wadcutter bullets seated flush with
the case mouth will work in them.
> A double action semiauto pistol (Beretta 92, SIG, S&W 59, P38, PPK)
> no problem. I've seen shows where there will be multiple 'clicks'
> with a empty Glock (stiker must be reset by cycling the slide) or
> single action auto (hammer must be thumbed back, Colt M1911) along
> with the usual "snick' when they take the Glock safety off.....(no
> manual safety )
The Glock safety is the little lever in the middle of the trigger.
It WILL NOT fire unless the trigger is pulled with a finger (or other
object) properly depressing the safety before moving the trigger.
As for underwater firing, there is ONE model of Glock specifically
designed for underwater firing. It's mainly used by the US Navy
Seals and Marine special forces. Proper hearing protection is
a must when firing it under water because it transfers sound waves
much better than air. Next time you take a bath, snap your fingers
under water with your ears under the surface and full of water.
Nice and loud. :)
In these threads, nobody has mentioned the possibility that the
various parts of Vera could be made from materials that need no
lubrication and will not gall as they slide against each other.
For instance the SIG Pro automatic pistol (as seen in "The Bourne
Identity") has a polymer frame and a metal slide. The frame is
slick enough that no lube is needed between it and the slide.
As for building a gun that must really have air around it to
fire, that would be possible by using a liquid fuel injected
into a combustion chamber along with air drawn in from outside
and compressed. But that theory for Vera is shot down by the
rack of metallic cartridges on the buttstock.
If you want to know exactly what Vera is, she's a cosmetically
modified Russian SAIGA automatic shotgun with a vertical magazine
feed. Add a rifled barrel for use with slugs and it'd lay down
a world of hurt.
There's an episode of "Mythbusters" where they went to the
effort to actually blow up a jetliner. First they sealed up all
the openings (the plane was at a storage/salvage place in Arizona
and the cockpit windows were out) then a "huffer", a huge air
compressor used to start 747 engines, was connected and the
plane pumped up to 8psi above ambient pressure. That's the difference
between the pressure inside and outside a plane at 35,000 feet.
The first test was to remotely fire a 9mm pistol through one of
the windows. All that happened was a 9mm hole in the window and
a slow leak. For the next test the window was patched and the
pistol fired through the body above the window. Same result.
Then they brought in an explosives and demolition expert. He
mounted a small, shaped charge against the window. BLAM! The whole
window went and their test dummy got its arm blown out the window.
For the final test they patched that window and placed an explosive
inside against the wall. Finally they acheived the classic effect
of "explosive decompression", actually more than they expected.
The blast caused enough damage for the structure to fail and
rip the forward section of the roof off. The neat bit was the
sudden loss of pressure triggered the oxygen masks to drop. :)
It was very similar to what happened to a plane of the same type
several years ago on landing approach to Hawaii, which was blamed
on metal fatigue and structural failure. That plane landed safely
and only a flight attendant who wasn't belted in was lost.
So now whenever you see a movie scene where a person shoots
through a window on a jetliner and the whole plane goes to
bits, you know it's totally WRONG and IMPOSSIBLE. :)
The show used a clip from the "U.S. Marshals" movie to illustrate
Hollywood's bad science.
GAlan
news:40167471....@news2.flex.com:
> I wonder if Vera is open breech or closed breech - I shall have to
> utilize the miracle that is DVD frame by frame slo-mo. :-)
She's whatever a Russian SAIGA magazine-fed, semi-auto shotgun is,
because that's what was tarted up by the prop department for the
show. I read somewhere that gun was previously used in some movie
and further modified for Firefly.
C.O.Jones
<gre...@NOCANNEDMEAT.valint.net> wrote:
> If you want to know exactly what Vera is, she's a cosmetically
> modified Russian SAIGA automatic shotgun with a vertical magazine
> feed. Add a rifled barrel for use with slugs and it'd lay down
> a world of hurt.
Nice to know.
Makes me the proud owner of a similar "Vera," the Spaz12 Auto 12 guage.
lurkinghorror
> So now whenever you see a movie scene where a person shoots
> through a window on a jetliner and the whole plane goes to
> bits, you know it's totally WRONG and IMPOSSIBLE. :)
> The show used a clip from the "U.S. Marshals" movie to illustrate
> Hollywood's bad science.
The first place I remember seeing that was in one of the earlier James
Bond movies. Poor science, dramatic movie scene.
Don Sample
lurkinghorror <lurkin...@cyberbeyond.gov> wrote:
> In article <Xns95181576CBE1...@216.168.3.44>, GAlan
> <gre...@NOCANNEDMEAT.valint.net> wrote:
>
> > So now whenever you see a movie scene where a person shoots
> > through a window on a jetliner and the whole plane goes to
> > bits, you know it's totally WRONG and IMPOSSIBLE. :)
> > The show used a clip from the "U.S. Marshals" movie to illustrate
> > Hollywood's bad science.
>
> The first place I remember seeing that was in one of the earlier James
> Bond movies. Poor science, dramatic movie scene.
Yeah, Goldfinger. Great big guy gets sucked through itty bitty
airplane window. They used it again in the latest Bond flick.
RiffRandall
Re Vera
>As for building a gun that must really have air around it to
>fire, that would be possible by using a liquid fuel injected
>into a combustion chamber along with air drawn in from outside
>and compressed. But that theory for Vera is shot down by the
>rack of metallic cartridges on the buttstock.
Unless the "metallic cartridges" are spare liquid fuel cylinders..........
>If you want to know exactly what Vera is, she's a cosmetically
>modified Russian SAIGA automatic shotgun with a vertical magazine
>feed. Add a rifled barrel for use with slugs and it'd lay down
>a world of hurt.
Gotta love a 12 gauge AK.
Cat
"Don Sample" <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote in message
news:010720041736237405%dsa...@synapse.net...
Somewhere, back in the day, I came across a cool website that had a whole
list of these things - you know, the bad science in movies. It gave
specific examples and showed why it wouldn't work that way, etc.
In a ever so slightly similar vein, anyone watch the tv show "Mythbusters?"
That one is a lot of fun...debunking urban legends, so to speak, with
scientific experimentation. The two guys who do the show are hilarious.
--
cat
"Yeah, it's a tale of woe, very stirring but in the meantime you've heaped a
world of trouble on me and mine."
(Captain Malcom Reynolds, Firefly)
Captain Nerd
"Cat" <hbang...@msn.com> wrote:
> "Don Sample" <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote in message
> news:010720041736237405%dsa...@synapse.net...
> > In article <010720041334561049%lurkin...@cyberbeyond.gov>,
> > lurkinghorror <lurkin...@cyberbeyond.gov> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <Xns95181576CBE1...@216.168.3.44>, GAlan
> > > <gre...@NOCANNEDMEAT.valint.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > So now whenever you see a movie scene where a person shoots
> > > > through a window on a jetliner and the whole plane goes to
> > > > bits, you know it's totally WRONG and IMPOSSIBLE. :)
> > > > The show used a clip from the "U.S. Marshals" movie to illustrate
> > > > Hollywood's bad science.
> > >
> > > The first place I remember seeing that was in one of the earlier James
> > > Bond movies. Poor science, dramatic movie scene.
> >
> > Yeah, Goldfinger. Great big guy gets sucked through itty bitty
> > airplane window. They used it again in the latest Bond flick.
>
> Somewhere, back in the day, I came across a cool website that had a whole
> list of these things - you know, the bad science in movies. It gave
> specific examples and showed why it wouldn't work that way, etc.
>
> In a ever so slightly similar vein, anyone watch the tv show "Mythbusters?"
> That one is a lot of fun...debunking urban legends, so to speak, with
> scientific experimentation. The two guys who do the show are hilarious.
And they're not even scientists, they're both special effects
experts. Excellent show, with great interplay between the two.
The younger hyper guy always gets one dig in on the laid-back
older guy. Being of the older, laid-back persuasion myself,
I can feel his pain! :-)
Cap.
--
Since 1989, recycling old jokes, cliches, and bad puns, one Usenet
post at a time!
Operation: Nerdwatch http://www.nerdwatch.com
Only email with "TO_CAP" somewhere in the subject has a chance of being read
Anton Sherwood
> If you want to know exactly what Vera is, she's a cosmetically
> modified Russian SAIGA automatic shotgun with a vertical magazine
> feed.
Don't most magazines feed vertically?
[big snip]
> So now whenever you see a movie scene where a person shoots
> through a window on a jetliner and the whole plane goes to
> bits, you know it's totally WRONG and IMPOSSIBLE. :)
This comes up a lot in debates over allowing pilots to carry pistols.
--
Anton Sherwood (prepend "1" to address)
http://www.ogre.nu/
Don Sample
<ne...@ogre.nu> wrote:
> GAlan wrote:
> > If you want to know exactly what Vera is, she's a cosmetically
> > modified Russian SAIGA automatic shotgun with a vertical magazine
> > feed.
>
> Don't most magazines feed vertically?
Yeah, but not all. Some weapons, such as the P90, have horizontal
magazines.
Beth Smarr
--
Beth
Smarr's Beanery http://members.verizon.net/~vze4cfzz/
Beth's Wallpapers http://members.verizon.net/%7Evze4cfzz/bwalls.htm
James Craine
lurkinghorror wrote:
> In article <Xns95181576CBE1...@216.168.3.44>, GAlan
> <gre...@NOCANNEDMEAT.valint.net> wrote:
>
>
>>So now whenever you see a movie scene where a person shoots
>>through a window on a jetliner and the whole plane goes to
>>bits, you know it's totally WRONG and IMPOSSIBLE. :)
>>The show used a clip from the "U.S. Marshals" movie to illustrate
>>Hollywood's bad science.
>
>
> The first place I remember seeing that was in one of the earlier James
> Bond movies. Poor science, dramatic movie scene.
>
Auric Goldfinger dies by being sucked out of the window of
his biz-jet.
Hank Tiffany
> I forget - when did this thread (The Thread That Would Not Die) begin?
About 10 minutes after 'Our Mrs Reynolds' 1st aired. It's gone on
hiatus a few times but it always comes back.
David Brewer
Most magazine rifles have a vertical and detachable box magazines,
but most magazine shotguns have fixed tubular magazines, lying
horizontally beneath and parallel to the barrel, a style that has
been commonplace since the nineteenth century (A style that,
bafflingly, "Zoe" prefers for her rifles and sidearms). I'm sure
that if one conjures up a mental image of a shotgun one thinks
("Ka-chunk") of a pump-action riot gun with a fixed tubular
magazine.
The Saiga is not the first shotgun to have a detachable box
magazine, but it is the cheapest and most successful so far. It's
pretty much just a Kalashnikov rifle ("AK47") reworked to use
shotgun shells, which is why it is both cheap and robust.
And may I just say that "Vera" looks like a stupid piece of crap?
Good-looking firearms should be a object demonstration in form
following function. Clagging random bits onto a weapon makes it
look like shit. Jayne should've kept hold of the rifle he swiped
in the pilot.
--
David Brewer
"The mentally disturbed do not employ the Theory of Scientific
Parsimony: the most simple theory to explain a given set of
facts." - P.K.Dick (from VALIS)
lurkinghorror
<david...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> And may I just say that "Vera" looks like a stupid piece of crap?
> Good-looking firearms should be a object demonstration in form
> following function. Clagging random bits onto a weapon makes it
> look like shit. Jayne should've kept hold of the rifle he swiped
> in the pilot.
Personal preferences. Most of the decision makers in Hollyweird don't
really know, or care, about efficiency in weapon design. Popular
appearance trumps form and function. ("Use THAT gun, it's Big and
Shiny!")
Most people here seem to be OK with Vera...
Don Sample
lurkinghorror <lurkin...@cyberbeyond.gov> wrote:
> In article <40E56B06...@blueyonder.co.uk>, David Brewer
> <david...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > And may I just say that "Vera" looks like a stupid piece of crap?
> > Good-looking firearms should be a object demonstration in form
> > following function. Clagging random bits onto a weapon makes it
> > look like shit. Jayne should've kept hold of the rifle he swiped
> > in the pilot.
>
> Personal preferences. Most of the decision makers in Hollyweird don't
> really know, or care, about efficiency in weapon design. Popular
> appearance trumps form and function. ("Use THAT gun, it's Big and
> Shiny!")
And hold the gun sideways when you shoot! That looks kool!
GAlan
dsa...@synapse.net:
Yeah! Somewhere I saw a parody advertisement for "Ghetto Sights"
mounted on the side of an automatic pistol's slide. ;)
First Fallen
>
> Yeah! Somewhere I saw a parody advertisement for "Ghetto Sights"
> mounted on the side of an automatic pistol's slide. ;)
Of course, in reality...shooting a semi-auto gun sideways makes it much more
prone to jamming.
David Brewer
Captain Nerd
Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote:
Actually, I thought that was due to reduced stress on the arm when
held in that position. I remember from karate that at full extension
the arm has less strain on the various tendons when the fist is in
the position where the fingers are vertical, back of the hand facing
up. The fist describes a spiral as you move from close in the body
to full extension, allowing more energy in the hit. This is the same
position I've seen in the movies, just with a gun in the fist.
But then I haven't fired a gun since I was a kid, so I don't know
how bad it would be to shoot like that.
RiffRandall
> Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote:
>> lurkinghorror <lurkin...@cyberbeyond.gov> wrote:
>> > David Brewer<david...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> > > And may I just say that "Vera" looks like a stupid piece of crap?
>> > > Good-looking firearms should be a object demonstration in form
>> > > following function. Clagging random bits onto a weapon makes it
>> > > look like shit. Jayne should've kept hold of the rifle he swiped
>> > > in the pilot.
>> > Personal preferences. Most of the decision makers in Hollyweird don't
>> > really know, or care, about efficiency in weapon design. Popular
>> > appearance trumps form and function. ("Use THAT gun, it's Big and
>> > Shiny!")
That explains the popularity of the Desert Eagle pistol. Nobody in real life would carry such a huge, heavy, unreliable
hand howitzer for self protection (esp conceale) but it LOOKS real impressive so Hollywood loves it.
>> And hold the gun sideways when you shoot! That looks kool!
Or use two pistols at the same time, one in each hand.
> Actually, I thought that was due to reduced stress on the arm when
> held in that position. I remember from karate that at full extension
> the arm has less strain on the various tendons when the fist is in
> the position where the fingers are vertical, back of the hand facing
> up. The fist describes a spiral as you move from close in the body
> to full extension, allowing more energy in the hit. This is the same
> position I've seen in the movies, just with a gun in the fist.
> But then I haven't fired a gun since I was a kid, so I don't know
> how bad it would be to shoot like that.
A slight inward cant is natural & doesn't really hurt accuracy too much at close range. The exaggerated raised arm,
downward angled sideways "homie" shooting stance explains why gangbangers usually can't hit anything, even at almost
contact range.
Some competitors in "3 gun" shooting matches have started mounting sights to the side of their rifles. A electronic red
dot scope in the standard top position for fast, close in shots. A telescopic scope mounted on the right side of the
forearm with a bipod mounted on the left....that way for the long, difficult shots they can tilt the rifle over, unfold
the bipod for support & use the scope.
Shooting with the gun sideways does have some practical use. When shooting a rifle that has a large box magazine (AK47,
AR15, etc) from the prone position the magazine tries to act as a monopod, limiting how low to the ground you can get..
Doesn't really matter at all when shooting targets on a range but in a real firefight the smaller your profile the
better.
Zombie Elvis
You wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Jul 2004, Beth Smarr wrote:
>
> > I forget - when did this thread (The Thread That Would Not
Die) begin?
>
> About 10 minutes after 'Our Mrs Reynolds' 1st aired. It's gone
on
> hiatus a few times but it always comes back.
It actually predates this newsgroup by a couple of months.
--
"This is a revolution dammit! We're going to have to offend
somebody."
-- John Adams in "1776"
First Fallen
>
> Actually, I thought that was due to reduced stress on the arm when
> held in that position. I remember from karate that at full extension
> the arm has less strain on the various tendons when the fist is in
> the position where the fingers are vertical, back of the hand facing
> up. The fist describes a spiral as you move from close in the body
> to full extension, allowing more energy in the hit. This is the same
> position I've seen in the movies, just with a gun in the fist.
>
> But then I haven't fired a gun since I was a kid, so I don't know
> how bad it would be to shoot like that.
Shooting it sidways though would severely reduce your accuracy and control
of the firearm. As someone else pointed out, that's why gangbangers can't
hit a damn thing, and always hit innocent bystanders instead of the other
gangbanger they were aiming for. Plus, if it's a semi-auto, holding it
sidways makes it more prone to jamming. It's designed for the cartridges to
be expelled at a certain angle when the firearm is held upright. When held
sideways, they don't eject properly, and can get stuck in the slide.
Sean Massey
And makes you less likely to hit anything...
Jago MacSchwartz Pennis
<mas...@charter.net> wrote:
No, just less likely to hit what you are shooting at...
Anton Sherwood
>>> Of course, in reality...shooting a semi-auto gun sideways
>>> makes it much more prone to jamming.
> Sean Massey wrote:
>> And makes you less likely to hit anything...
Jago MacSchwartz Pennis wrote:
> No, just less likely to hit what you are shooting at...
Less likely to hit *anything* if it jams with the first shot.
First Fallen
> >>> Of course, in reality...shooting a semi-auto gun sideways
> >>> makes it much more prone to jamming.
>
> > Sean Massey wrote:
> >> And makes you less likely to hit anything...
>
> Jago MacSchwartz Pennis wrote:
> > No, just less likely to hit what you are shooting at...
>
> Less likely to hit *anything* if it jams with the first shot.
At least you'd still get that first round off...then you'd be kinda hooped
though :)
Beth Smarr
Isn't that why they set to spray, in hopes of getting the original
target before it jams?
Anton Sherwood
>>>> . . . Most of the decision makers in Hollyweird don't
>>>> really know, or care, about efficiency in weapon design.
>>>> Popular appearance trumps form and function. ("Use THAT gun,
>>>> it's Big and Shiny!")
RiffRandall wrote:
> That explains the popularity of the Desert Eagle pistol.
> Nobody in real life would carry such a huge, heavy, unreliable
> hand howitzer for self protection (esp conceale) but it LOOKS
> real impressive so Hollywood loves it.
I remember an episode of Vengeance Unlimited in which a starving
student, worried about his sister's safety, buys a fullsize Glock -
which is hard to conceal and costs at least three times as much as a
good secondhand .38 snubby. I reckon it was chosen partly to
distinguish it visually from the revolver that appeared elsewhere in the
same episode (in each ep that I saw, Chapel grabbed a revolver away from
someone and made a show of unloading and throwing it away) and partly
because Glocks in those days represented the Dark Side.
Scott Schwartz
"First Fallen" <no...@nope.com> wrote in message
news:XFrFc.7473$WB5.658@pd7tw2no...
I have a friend in the FBI who loves the fact that movies glorify that style
of gunplay. He says the more the bad guys do that to look cool the safer he
feels cause you can't hit crap while doing that.
Anton Sherwood
Scott Schwartz wrote:
> I have a friend in the FBI who loves the fact that movies glorify
> that style of gunplay. He says the more the bad guys do that to look
> cool the safer he feels cause you can't hit crap while doing that.
Unless there's plenty of crap around. ;)
This reminds me obliquely of my response to the perennial proposal to
tax ammo at 10c (or more) a round: most of the tax would be paid by
peaceful guys who go to the range every weekend, precisely the people
*least* likely (well, of those who shoot at all) to injure the wrong person.
Jay G
> Hello, Hank Tiffany !
> You wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 2 Jul 2004, Beth Smarr wrote:
>>
>>> I forget - when did this thread (The Thread That Would Not Die)
>>> begin?
>>
>> About 10 minutes after 'Our Mrs Reynolds' 1st aired. It's gone on
>> hiatus a few times but it always comes back.
>
> It actually predates this newsgroup by a couple of months.
This specific thread started on Dec. 27th, 2003:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3fee180e%240%244754%2461fed72c%40news.rcn.com
The earliest discussion of this issue in regards to Firefly is
probably this thread:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3D9E59AE.35B9%40telusplanet.net
Discussions of guns in a vacuum date back even further in Usenet,
going back to 1995 with the specific phrase "guns in a vacuum":
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=42cunu%24l7o%40news.bu.edu
"Guns in Space" dates back even further, to 1991:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=910823000023.87b%40VAX.STMARYTX.EDU
-Jay
Richard Amirault
>
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3fee180e%240%244754%2461fed72c%40news.rcn.com
HEY, that's me!! ;-)
Waiting patiently for the movie ... and for the World Science Fiction
convention and the Hugo Awards here in Boston.
--
Richard Amirault N1JDU Boston,
MA, USA
www.erols.com/ramirault "Go Fly A Kite"