Testing GYROJET Rocket Guns - Why were they a commercial failure
Collapse
X
-
Tags: None
-
I have seriously been considering making a modern gyrojet to sell to ellon and the spaceforce. interesting how all the engineering is in the projectile and not in the mechanics of the gun itself unlike traditional firearms.Gas, Grass or Brass, no one rides for free... -
OR you could just rebrand litterally any other gun on the market. they will fire in a vacuum. More exciting than gyro jets, bullets = boost!
Comment
-
Yeah but the recoil would launch you into the infinite abyss. And an accidental discharge in a space ship would be catastrophic from decompression. And most importantly a rocket gun is 10x more badass and futuristic.Gas, Grass or Brass, no one rides for free...Comment
-
Another cool thing about the gyrojet is I believe the ammunition is caseless. Honestly, they'd probably work great in space.Comment
-
they had accuracy issues . . . and the gyrojet rocket rounds really are US Civil War tech level - go look at some of the rocket artillery shells from that era, you'll see it. so while the guns look all space age, the projectiles they were firing were very much not.
want a funky atomic punk weapon from that same era? go check out the DardickOriginally posted by Carp
Bored383 is a ruthless and cutthroat facilitator of cricket fighting.
Originally posted by Headshotted
Contrary to popular belief, bored383 can believe it's not butter, with empirical evidence.
Originally posted by Carp
Bored383 single-handedly managed the successful upgrade and deployment of new environmental illumination system with 0 cost overruns and 0 safety incidents.Comment
-
Now I'm curious... by moving the COG forward, could accuracy be improved? With modern manufacturing methods, could the jets be more precisely symmetric? I still don't see these being competitors at 1000 yards, but a quiet, low recoil round with that sort of energy could be handy between, say, 20 and 100 yards (you know, typical carbine distances). I bet they would be good candidates for some cool additive or electrochemical manufacturing, given the size.
Also, at point blank range, are they not relevant at all, or just less lethal?Feedback
www.PhrameworkDesigns.com < Nelspot, Sterling, and Phantom parts, plus the occasional big project.Comment
-
They were actually quite accurate, it is a misconception that they weren't, this is because of people testing the rockets years after manufacture. Solid rocket fuel is hydroscopic, it pulls in moisture from the air over time and makes the fuel not burn as hot and burn erratically, making them inaccurate. the military did testing on them during Vietnam and found that they were very accurate, they were even used in Vietnam by some officers. The angled nozzles caused the projectile to spin stabilize just like a bullet fired from a traditional firearm. The biggest reason they were a commercial failure is the fact that the ammunition was too expensive and there was no efficient way of mass production, each rocket had to be precision machined.Now I'm curious... by moving the COG forward, could accuracy be improved? With modern manufacturing methods, could the jets be more precisely symmetric? I still don't see these being competitors at 1000 yards, but a quiet, low recoil round with that sort of energy could be handy between, say, 20 and 100 yards (you know, typical carbine distances). I bet they would be good candidates for some cool additive or electrochemical manufacturing, given the size.
Also, at point blank range, are they not relevant at all, or just less lethal?Gas, Grass or Brass, no one rides for free...Comment
-
Also, they had a minimum range.
As a rocket, it takes time for them to build up speed. Something like 20 yards or so, IIRC.
Inside that, they ranged from 'less penetration' down to 'moderate bruise'.Comment
Comment