Bullets And More VR - BAM VR Update
Waltruda Monie
I am currently trying to write a sci-fi world set in a very distant future. It is a "hard" sci-fi setting, however it has things such as artificial gravity and FTL systems, however I am currently unsure if the weapons for ground forces should use conventional cartridges or directed energy weapons, in this case, pulsed lasers.
For ecample, I had an idea for a 8mm pistol cartridge that was developed in 161239 C.E. It is a chemically propelled metallic cartridge that is comparable to the 9x20mmSR Browning Long, but I am not sure if this is "fitting" for such timeframe.
Wikipedia has a convenient table of the energy densities of all batteries. The 3 battery types (2 are subsets of lithium-ion) you've listed, Lithium-sulfur, Lithium-polymer, and Nickel-cadmium have energy densities (by weight in MJ/Kg) of 1.07, 0.7, and 0.11, respectively. For comparison the energy density of gunpowder is 4.7, body fat is 9.74, gasoline is 13.3, and ammonia is 16.9 (all including the weight of the oxygen) . We'll assume the batteries will be used to fire lasers, and that the chemicals will be used to launch bullets. Lasers are a pretty good way to turn battery power into destructive energy, and chemicals can release their energy explosively when sufficiently mixed with liquid oxygen.
Now, we must consider the different weapons technologies. Let's start with the chemicals first. Using Zeiss Ikon's value of let's call it 500J per bullet, and assuming a 32% efficiency for small firearms, 100g of the chemicals will launch:
So unless your civilization really steps up their battery game, modern day tech has no chance against actual bullets. And even if they could, bullets do a lot more damage with impacts than the localized heating of a laser, making them a better technology for destruction.
First, the rate a battery can supply energy limits at least the repeat fire rate of any battery powered energy weapon. As with a strobe flash -- the question becomes "How fast can you recharge that big capacitor?" Sure, we have strobes that can fire four or even eight pulses in the 1/8 second or so it takes the shutter to travel in a DSLR, but they're doing this by using only a fraction of the capacitor's energy for each pulse, and quenching the flash rapidly; you probably wouldn't do this with a laser pistol or ion rifle.
Second, the sheer amount of energy required for a laser pulse to produce similar impact to even a pretty modest bullet is HUGE in electronics terms. A bullet like 9 mm Parabellum (aka 9x19) has common military loadings imparting approximately 480-680 J (350-500 ft-lb), carried by a lead pellet that requires pretty restrictive protective gear to protect against. For a laser to deliver 500 J, you would need a capacitor that can store well over a kiloJoule (possibly as much as two kJ) for the most efficient lasers, up to several times that if you've chosen power or wavelength over efficiency.
It's your fictional universe, perhaps they've worked up a cartridge fed chemical laser (like the hydrogen-fluorine infrared ones the US military was testing a couple decades ago -- fire only while wearing a space suit!), but if you want battery power (rechargeable etc.) then you're limited by what electronics and the related physics can deliver.
As an added bonus, bullets aren't much affected by smoke or haze; if you can see the target well enough to aim, bullets still work, where 40% obscuring smoke will cut at least 40% of the power of a laser pulse (modified slightly by wavelength -- longer waves penetrate smoke and haze better). Further, bullets will still work even if you can't see your target, providing you can get hits ("spray and pray" method may be the only option in this case).
Yes, bullets are affected by wind, have a "drop" and "jump" over long ranges -- but we have more than a century of long range fire with what we consider modern ammunition to guide those who might shoot beyond a couple hundred meters; one-shot kills are the rule for snipers to several times this range. As added plus, guns are relatively cheap to make and robust against environmental insults, unlike electronics (which can be hardened against water and dust, but doing so makes them more difficult to maintain and repair -- and never forget what happens if your optics aren't clean).
If your artificial gravity generators are small enough and have a sufficiently low energy budget, you could take a page from the Honorverse and use gravity-driven mass drivers. Basically, you throw a slug like a conventional firearm, but rather than using explosive propellant, you use gravity, sort of like a better version of a rail/coil gun. (Technically, these might still use "bullets". Slingshots use bullets!)
In Honorverse (which is admittedly pretty lenient about energy requirements), these combine an extremely high rate of fire with extremely high muzzle velocities, and the ammunition is basically just hunks of metal. Concievably you could even have a weapon capable of firing anything you can shove down the barrel (although rate of fire with such a device would be severely limited, and firing something incapable of remaining intact would be fairly useless at anything other than point-blank range). You do still need "power packs", however, but it's probably easier to find sources of electricity in the field than to create gunpowder.
But since your story is set Far In The Future, they've probably perfected coilguns and railguns: they'd replace artillery (including howitzers, but not mortars or small arms, because of their self-contained ammunition) and have a range the circumference of the planet. The current problems with those two technologies are:
Country XYZ prefers beam weapons for infantry and bullets for officers.Maybe because the beam weapons are larger (think rifle vs pistol).Maybe,country QQQ prefers beam weapons for land troops and bullets for water troops.Maybe,beam weapons are all vehicle mounted and/or crew served,but personal weapons are bullets (rifles and pistols).
As you likely know, lead is a potent neurotoxin that disrupts brain development in babies and children, damages kidneys in adults, and can cause pregnant women to miscarry. In fact, a recent study found that exposure to lead in childhood can lower IQ for decades and can correlate with lower socioeconomic status as an adult. According to the World Health Organization, there is no known level of lead exposure that is considered safe. Fittingly, over the past few decades, the United States has removed this toxic heavy metal from gasoline, paint, toys, and pencils. But there is one industry that continues to embrace lead: hunting and fishing.
The issue was brought to my attention a few weeks ago when, on his first day in office, Department of the Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke rescinded an order that prohibited the use of lead on most federal lands. (Dan Ashe, outgoing director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, had given the order on his last day in office.) Like a lot of Americans, I went from not even knowing lead ammo and tackle had been banned to wondering who, in the year 2017, would be championing the proliferation of a known neurotoxin.
In fact, former president George H. W. Bush banned the use of lead shot for use on waterfowl in 1991 after it was proved that lead was sickening migratory wetland bird populations. A quarter of a century later, more than a million hunters don waders and deploy decoys to lure in ducks, geese, and other waterfowl each year. The only difference is that they now load their shotguns with steel.
Frost points to a study conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the North Dakota Department of Health that shows people who regularly consume wild game tend to have higher levels of lead in their blood.
There were a couple of things that bothered me about the MythBusters' myth where they fired bullets in the air. The myth was that a bullet fired in the air could kill you. The first problem is that it is not a myth. There are several reported cases of people being killed from bullets that were fired in the air. The Mythbusters tested this by finding out how fast a bullet would be going if fired straight up. A couple of problems:
That is a much tougher question than you may realize. Not all bullets perform to the same standards from gun to gun. The smartest thing to do is order up a bunch of sample packs or small 250-500 lots from the major players and test them yourself. All of the major players make very good quality bullets that are typically more than accurate for our games. Make sure to try coated, plated and even jacketed varieties.
While your at it don't forget, bullets perform differently with different powders as well. Crimp, oal, velocity, etc all play a role as well. There can be quite a bit of work involved in finding the best load for a particular gun.
You will get all kinds of comments telling you what worked best for THEM, but that does not mean it will work for you. Sure, it can be a great starting point but only you can prove it out one way or the other.
Regardless of weight, I have seen the most convincing comments supporting the Hornady HAP as being the most accurate with Zero JHP, Montana Gold JHP and Precision Delta JHP following right behind. I personally have used all but the Zero and found them all to be accurate but I have also never tested with a Ransom Rest or similar set-up to truly discern differences between them.
Though they may not be the absolute most accurate bullet for each gun, I have several 9mm's that all shoot MG 124CMJ's very well. If you are shooting with a comp the CMJ's have less leading, and at indoor ranges should have less of an impact on air quality.
7fc3f7cf58