PDA

View Full Version : The Fastest Gunman in the World: 300 shots/round



Tyrael
2009-06-09, 06:32 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLnmvseCseI

He says he fires in 2/100 of a second, or 1/50 of a second. Therefore, if he has Rapid Reload and the Quick-Loading enchantment, he can probably reload as a free action, which enables him to fire with his full BAB.

So, if he fires 50 times in one second, he fires 300 times in a full 6-second DnD round. DMG p146 lists the modern-era revolver as dealing 2d8 damage per shot.

So...this guy could deal 1200d8 damage per round, 4800 on average.:smalleek:

I think God should ban this guy from the game for powergaming. :smalltongue:

Mr. Mud
2009-06-09, 06:35 PM
Fastest Gunman, yes, fastest reload? No. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAFxgQmxbGI)

Verruckt
2009-06-09, 07:01 PM
Bob Munden is one of the fastest guns on earth, but man is inevitably superseded by machine, and there is a machine that makes Bob, or any other mere mortal gunslinger, look like a kid with a BB gun.

It weighs 281 kilos.
It is 6 meters long, including an ammo hopper roughly the same size as a Volkswagen.
From 7 barrels it fires at 3,900 rpm, or 390 rounds-per-round.
It has a maximum range 1,200 meters
It fires 30x173mm shells that are made of depleted uranium and on fire, every fourth round explodes.
Those shells are fired in short bursts in order to compensate for the insane rate of fire. A rate of fire so terrifying that even when mitigated through 7 barrels sustained fire for more than 2-3 seconds risks melting the gun.

Did I mention it can fly (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-VJ8JgwTnY)?

Stat that.

RandomLogic
2009-06-09, 09:46 PM
Bob Munden is one of the fastest guns on earth, but man is inevitably superseded by machine, and there is a machine that makes Bob, or any other mere mortal gunslinger, look like a kid with a BB gun.

It weighs 281 kilos.
It is 6 meters long, including an ammo hopper roughly the same size as a Volkswagen.
From 7 barrels it fires at 3,900 rpm, or 390 rounds-per-round.
It has a maximum range 1,200 meters
It fires 30x173mm shells that are made of depleted uranium and on fire, every fourth round explodes.
Those shells are fired in short bursts in order to compensate for the insane rate of fire. A rate of fire so terrifying that even when mitigated through 7 barrels sustained fire for more than 2-3 seconds risks melting the gun.

Did I mention it can fly (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-VJ8JgwTnY)?

Stat that.


As much as I love gatling guns and the A-10... You still haven't grabbed the fastest one... (it may have 7 barrels, but it still only fires from one at a time)

Metal storm at 1000000 rounds per minute Teehee... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8hlj4EbdsE)

1000000 rounds per minute / 6 rounds = 166,667 rounds per round.

Sure, shooting a million rounds is really a magazine problem....

Verruckt
2009-06-09, 10:19 PM
As much as I love gatling guns and the A-10... You still haven't grabbed the fastest one... (it may have 7 barrels, but it still only fires from one at a time)

Metal storm at 1000000 rounds per minute Teehee... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8hlj4EbdsE)

1000000 rounds per minute / 6 rounds = 166,667 rounds per round.

Sure, shooting a million rounds is really a magazine problem....

Yeah yeah yeah, metal storm starts to bend the typical definition of a gun though. But yes you are correct, and woe betide anything in its path.

Ravens_cry
2009-06-09, 10:32 PM
Bob Munden is one of the fastest guns on earth, but man is inevitably superseded by machine, and there is a machine that makes Bob, or any other mere mortal gunslinger, look like a kid with a BB gun.

It weighs 281 kilos.
It is 6 meters long, including an ammo hopper roughly the same size as a Volkswagen.
From 7 barrels it fires at 3,900 rpm, or 390 rounds-per-round.
It has a maximum range 1,200 meters
It fires 30x173mm shells that are made of depleted uranium and on fire, every fourth round explodes.
Those shells are fired in short bursts in order to compensate for the insane rate of fire. A rate of fire so terrifying that even when mitigated through 7 barrels sustained fire for more than 2-3 seconds risks melting the gun.

Did I mention it can fly (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-VJ8JgwTnY)?

Stat that.
Reading that, I was pretty I sure I knew what you meant, and I was right.
Gods, I love the Warthog.

Faulty
2009-06-09, 10:45 PM
I find it incredibly depressing that people spend so much money making "better" guns.

Innis Cabal
2009-06-09, 10:58 PM
I find it incredibly depressing that people spend so much money making "better" guns.

I find it depressing that so many seem to worry about the way we kill each other when nature's been doing it the best since the dawn of time.

Faulty
2009-06-09, 11:02 PM
I find it depressing that so many seem to worry about the way we kill each other when nature's been doing it the best since the dawn of time.

Yeah, nature is doing a pretty good job. Guess I should stop worrying about people killing each other. Who cares if that would reduce death? It'll happen anyway, right? I guess I'll stop trying and go slide into amoral apathy.

GoC
2009-06-09, 11:18 PM
Yeah, nature is doing a pretty good job. Guess I should stop worrying about people killing each other. Who cares if that would reduce death? It'll happen anyway, right? I guess I'll stop trying and go slide into amoral apathy.

It doesn't affect you, why should you care?

The dead via guns are a tiny tiny fraction of the total dead.

Innis Cabal
2009-06-09, 11:19 PM
It doesn't affect you, why should you care?

The dead via guns are a tiny tiny fraction of the total dead.

Because some people like to put the worries of others on themselves. Not always a terrible thing, but you can't save everyone and guns are hardly the biggest concern. What with famine and disease running around lulzing it up.


But this is hardly the point of this topic.

Guns that shoot fast are awesome, the youtube link was astounding....that is all.

Trizap
2009-06-09, 11:28 PM
It doesn't affect you, why should you care?

The dead via guns are a tiny tiny fraction of the total dead.

yea, more people have been killed by diseases, natural disasters, old age, and 90% of animal species that ever lived on earth? extinct by completely natural means. the animals we see today are only 10% of what is truly out there, and we are only one species.

guns? that is nothing, mother nature has taken more lives than we probably ever will with our machines.

see? no matter how awesome guns are, mother Nature will always have the highest kill count.

Yulian
2009-06-09, 11:34 PM
Try this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pF2vOkqTBoA

Ultrafast shooting and reloading.

8 rounds 1 target, 1 second.

8 rounds 4 targets, 1.06 seconds.

6 shots, reload, 6 shots, 2.99 seconds.

I think this guy wins for sustained fire and accuracy overall.

- Yulian

chiasaur11
2009-06-10, 12:08 AM
I find it incredibly depressing that people spend so much money making "better" guns.

But without lasers, how will we fight off the Mutons?

Verruckt
2009-06-10, 12:44 AM
I find it incredibly depressing that people spend so much money making "better" guns.

I agree, I abhor war and violence the same way I abhor environmental damage. At the same time however I can still appreciate the aesthetics and efficiency (I'm German at heart, sue me) of a GAU-8 the same way I admire the lines and roar of a Ferrari. An enormous mini gun is no less beautiful because of what it can do than a Ferrari is less attractive because it runs on gasoline.

Anyway, any of y'all heard of the CIWS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgpQBZF2sZQ) system? We use it to intercept missile headed for some of our ships and there's even a land based version (depicted in the vid).

The kicker here is the CIWS is a 20mm M61 Vulcan at heart. The Dutch of all people decided that 20mm just wasn't enough, and came up with the aptly named and utterly mad Goalkeeper (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nY6nm-6eCzM) system. They literally welded a GAU-8 to a radar package and shoot it at missiles and offending seagulls.

Tengu_temp
2009-06-10, 02:11 AM
I find it incredibly depressing that people spend so much money making "better" guns.

Si vis pacem, para bellum. If you don't put a lot of money into researching new weaponry, you'll be ultimately eaten by these who do.

Ziren
2009-06-10, 02:34 AM
Because some people like to put the worries of others on themselves. Not always a terrible thing, but you can't save everyone and guns are hardly the biggest concern. What with famine and disease running around lulzing it up.


But this is hardly the point of this topic.

Guns that shoot fast are awesome, the youtube link was astounding....that is all.


I'm pretty sure there would be a lot less victims from disease and famine if we would spend the money spent on weapon research and production to solve those problems. Not that I say this would necessarily a good thing, I'm just trying to point out the flaw in your argument.

I agree that a weapon can have an aesthetic appeal, but it's IMO mostly due to design.

chiasaur11
2009-06-10, 02:36 AM
Si vis pacem, para bellum. If you don't put a lot of money into researching new weaponry, you'll be ultimately eaten by these who do.

Heh.

Read a lot of Stephenson and Heinlein saying the same thing.

Sad but true. Someone's going to be a major bastard. Better if the people who are less of bastards can ice him before he does any real harm.

Innis Cabal
2009-06-10, 02:40 AM
I'm pretty sure there would be a lot less victims from disease and famine if we would spend the money spent on weapon research and production to solve those problems. Not that I say this would necessarily a good thing, I'm just trying to point out the flaw in your argument.

I agree that a weapon can have an aesthetic appeal, but it's IMO mostly due to design.

Disagree with this for a whole lot of reasons, mostly because the money that goes to developing weapons would never got to funding anything that might improve the quality of life, it'd go into other things such as buildings etc.

Ziren
2009-06-10, 02:50 AM
Disagree with this for a whole lot of reasons, mostly because the money that goes to developing weapons would never got to funding anything that might improve the quality of life, it'd go into other things such as buildings etc.

What makes you think so? Sure, not all of it would go into such research and development (I used an idealized example anyway), but no extra funds at all? I find that hard to believe.

Innis Cabal
2009-06-10, 03:13 AM
Not enough to matter no. Not saying a little extra might not get funneled off but doubt highly it would ever be in the ammounts that would be needed to make a difference

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-06-10, 04:22 AM
I find it incredibly depressing that people spend so much money making "better" guns.

Would you prefer they spend money making worse guns in this day and age of product liability lawsuits?


Yeah, nature is doing a pretty good job. Guess I should stop worrying about people killing each other. Who cares if that would reduce death? It'll happen anyway, right? I guess I'll stop trying and go slide into amoral apathy.

The Mongol hordes were armed with what, MG42s?

Anyways, your logic is flawed because most of the new guns developed aren't usually used in conflicts, meaning that they do not contribute to people killing each other around the globe.

And quite frankly, there were massive amounts of murder and genocide before guns were invented, whereas according to your logic, it would follow that less guns would mean less killings.

There's also the part where there is no proof your statement is correct.

I mean, just off the top of my head I can think of a counterexample: The Rwandand Genocide, where most of the Hutus killed their neighbors while armed with machetes.

Peace.

GoC
2009-06-10, 05:38 AM
I'm pretty sure there would be a lot less victims from disease and famine if we would spend the money spent on weapon research and production to solve those problems. Not that I say this would necessarily a good thing, I'm just trying to point out the flaw in your argument.

There'd be a lot less victims of disease and famine if people spent the money they put into their cars on helping third-world countries. Do people do it? No.
The standard of living in first world countries is waaaaaaaaaay above what's needed to survive "comfortably".

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-06-10, 05:41 AM
There'd be a lot less victims of disease and famine if people spent the money they put into their cars on helping third-world countries. Do people do it? No.
The issue with foreign aid to developing countries is that you don't give aid to the people directly, you pass it through organizations which often has the money seized by a corrupt government and misappropriated for villas for government officials.

So to sum up, there'd be a lot less victims if people spent more on foreign aid... but we'd solve the root of the problem by changing the power structure in those countries.

GoC
2009-06-10, 06:18 AM
The issue with foreign aid to developing countries is that you don't give aid to the people directly, you pass it through organizations which often has the money seized by a corrupt government and misappropriated for villas for government officials.
Not as prevelant as many would like to claim. I know a guy who runs a charity in Colombia. Provides livings space, food and counseling for abandoned pregnant teenagers (and for a while after they have their child). Remarkably ineffecient when you consider the cost of living (it helps one person per 3-5,000 USD (can't recall exact figure) per year) but most of the money definitely goes towards helping said teens. In fact don't most charities release statements showing their expenditures?


So to sum up, there'd be a lot less victims if people spent more on foreign aid... but we'd solve the root of the problem by changing the power structure in those countries.
There's a name for this fallacy but I can't recall it...
The point is you're not going to change the power structure (in fact I doubt you'll even try) but you can certainly give money.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-06-10, 06:20 AM
Not as prevelant as many would like to claim.
Neither is this

There'd be a lot less victims of disease and famine if people spent the money they put into their cars on helping third-world countries. Do people do it? No.


In fact don't most charities release statements showing their expenditures?
Didn't Enron release statements showing...



There's a name for this fallacy but I can't recall it...
The point is you're not going to change the power structure (in fact I doubt you'll even try) but you can certainly give money.
Actually, I am a firm advocate of doing thing such as revolting against those in power if they are corrupt and the bombing of countries such as North Korea.

People either label me as a communist or an imperialist. Go figure...

And I can't really give money either, being but a poor college student.

Kris Strife
2009-06-10, 06:38 AM
As much as I love gatling guns and the A-10... You still haven't grabbed the fastest one... (it may have 7 barrels, but it still only fires from one at a time)

Metal storm at 1000000 rounds per minute Teehee... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8hlj4EbdsE)

1000000 rounds per minute / 6 rounds = 166,667 rounds per round.

Sure, shooting a million rounds is really a magazine problem....

Want... Now...

Wraithy
2009-06-10, 06:41 AM
There'd be a lot less victims of disease and famine if people spent the money they put into their cars on helping third-world countries. Do people do it? No.
The standard of living in first world countries is waaaaaaaaaay above what's needed to survive "comfortably".

20% of the population of the world consumes 60% of production (this isn't a brilliant statistic, very fallible, but it gives a good impression).

But the reality is that most people don't really care. Aid appeals have become so common that people don't really see them. They might watch and think "Oh, that's terrible", but for the most part they'll just go back to their lives and never really give it a second thought.

My best example of this sort of thing comes from personal experience. When I heard about the 7/7 bombings, I though "that's terrible", then went off to do whatever I normally do. Even though I only live two or three trains away from where it happened, I didn't know anyone who could be involved, so it didn't stick with me. When the Mumbai bombings happened, just because I knew someone a few streets away from the hotel, I was transfixed on it.

One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic. ~Stalin

My lack of faith in anything aside, corruption is an enormous obstacle to the development of a good portion of the world. But when Nigerian politicians lumber their country with debt to buy football stadiums, then accuse countries of colonialism when they complain about it, there's really not much you can do.

Lord of Rapture
2009-06-10, 07:12 AM
But without lasers, how will we fight off the Mutons?

You don't fight Mutons with puny lasers, dummy.

Only plasma and blaster bombs pack enough punch to take those wastes-of-space out.

GoC
2009-06-10, 08:46 AM
Actually, I am a firm advocate of doing thing such as revolting against those in power if they are corrupt and the bombing of countries such as North Korea.

The bombing of North Korea? Are you aware of why this is unfeasable?

Verruckt
2009-06-10, 09:23 AM
The bombing of North Korea? Are you aware of why this is unfeasable?

To be fair he didn't specify bombing with what.

Dervag
2009-06-10, 10:35 AM
As much as I love gatling guns and the A-10... You still haven't grabbed the fastest one... (it may have 7 barrels, but it still only fires from one at a time)

Metal storm at 1000000 rounds per minute Teehee... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8hlj4EbdsE)

1000000 rounds per minute / 6 rounds = 166,667 rounds per round.

Sure, shooting a million rounds is really a magazine problem....Can't be done with a conventional MetalStorm design, because the bullets are stacked end-to-end in the barrel.

Which also makes them difficult to reload. So a MetalStorm can't fire a million rounds a minute, because while its peak rate of fire is high, its duty cycle is very low (most of the time, it isn't shooting).
_______


You don't fight Mutons with puny lasers, dummy.

Only plasma and blaster bombs pack enough punch to take those wastes-of-space out.Obviously, you didn't use enough lasers.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-06-10, 11:50 AM
The bombing of North Korea? Are you aware of why this is unfeasable?

Way I see it, we reduce the number of nuclear weapons under our control and get rid of a problem nation. :smallwink:

Everybody wins!

On a more serious note, nuking it with ICBMS isn't hard, and if North Korea takes hostile action against South Korea, it would be the appropriate response in my book.

That's basically the only situation I'd do it in, though.


20% of the population of the world consumes 60% of production (this isn't a brilliant statistic, very fallible, but it gives a good impression).

It feels right, so it must be true? :smalleek: Which logical fallacy was that again?

Mewtarthio
2009-06-10, 12:56 PM
It feels right, so it must be true? :smalleek: Which logical fallacy was that again?

I think that's all of them, actually.

chiasaur11
2009-06-10, 01:38 PM
Can't be done with a conventional MetalStorm design, because the bullets are stacked end-to-end in the barrel.

Which also makes them difficult to reload. So a MetalStorm can't fire a million rounds a minute, because while its peak rate of fire is high, its duty cycle is very low (most of the time, it isn't shooting).
_______

Obviously, you didn't use enough lasers.

Danged right. A couple of rounds of point blank autofire drop Mutons as well as anything.

Besides, lasers just need to hold out until you have psychics.

Renegade Paladin
2009-06-10, 01:47 PM
Way I see it, we reduce the number of nuclear weapons under our control and get rid of a problem nation. :smallwink:

Everybody wins!
Except the population of Seoul, South Korea, which is now wiped off the map by the 50,000 some odd conventional artillery pieces pointed at it from the North Korean border.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-06-10, 01:54 PM
Except the population of Seoul, South Korea, which is now wiped off the map by the 50,000 some odd conventional artillery pieces pointed at it from the North Korean border.

The entire point of a swift nuclear response is to cripple the North Korean military before it is able to fire off a significant amount of artillery. It is a measure intended to protect South Korea in the event of hostilities.

Renegade Paladin
2009-06-10, 01:56 PM
You don't get it, do you? The border is within artillery range of Seoul. If you initiate nuclear strikes against the artillery emplacements, you destroy the city via proximity. If you don't, the border guard enacts their standing orders in case of a strike against Pyongyang and bombards Seoul.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-06-10, 02:01 PM
You don't get it, do you? The border is within artillery range of Seoul. If you initiate nuclear strikes against the artillery emplacements, you destroy the city via proximity.

Artillery positions are not known, but are estimated to be behind the DMZ last time I checked, so as to ensure their safety against US and SK infantry in a ground war.

Seoul is 30 miles from the DMZ.

"At Hiroshima, severe structural damage to buildings extended about 1 mile (1.6 km) from ground zero, making a circle of destruction 2 miles (3.2 km) in diameter. "

That was Little Boy, a relatively low yield nuclear weapon. Using nukes of a similar scale would result in small radius nuclear blasts with minimal chance of affecting Seoul or our troops on the DMZ.

A 1 mile blast radius around locations behind the DMZ is, last time I checked, an acceptable distance from Seoul?

Yora
2009-06-10, 02:06 PM
The dead via guns are a tiny tiny fraction of the total dead.
Gatling was a pacifist. He thought with his gun the killing would be over sooner, and less people would die from illness and hunger.
At his time, about one in ten dead soldiers died from enemy fire.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-06-10, 02:07 PM
Gatling was a pacifist. He thought with his gun the killing would be over sooner, and less people would die from illness and hunger.
At his time, about one in ten dead soldiers died from enemy fire.

Rest died from mismanagement, disease, hunger, and infection iirc.

ImmortalAer
2009-06-10, 02:12 PM
A 1 mile blast radius around locations behind the DMZ is, last time I checked, an acceptable distance from Seoul?

'The Atom Bomb' (Either deployed one) was rated as a 1 KT nuclear blast. We don't even carry those anymore, thier all 100 KT+.

KnightDisciple
2009-06-10, 02:15 PM
The kicker here is the CIWS is a 20mm M61 Vulcan at heart. The Dutch of all people decided that 20mm just wasn't enough, and came up with the aptly named and utterly mad Goalkeeper (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nY6nm-6eCzM) system. They literally welded a GAU-8 to a radar package and shoot it at missiles and offending seagulls.

...Wow. That's very shiny.

Though isn't it bad luck to shoot seagulls or some such?

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-06-10, 02:18 PM
'The Atom Bomb' (Either deployed one) was rated as a 1 KT nuclear blast. We don't even carry those anymore, thier all 100 KT+.

"The yield of tactical nuclear weapons is generally lower than that of strategic nuclear weapons, but they are still very powerful, and some variable-yield warheads serve in both roles. Modern tactical nuclear warheads have yields up to the tens of kilotons, or potentially hundreds, several times that of the weapons used in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
...
Tactical nuclear weapons have in the past made up a large part of the nuclear arsenals of the United States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and France, and they were a major part in the peak stockpile levels in the 1960s."
-Wikipedia

Also, Little Boy was 18 KT, not one KT.

Renegade Paladin
2009-06-10, 02:22 PM
...Wow. That's very shiny.

Though isn't it bad luck to shoot seagulls or some such?
You're thinking of the albatross. Seagulls are just rats with wings. Much like pigeons. :smalltongue:

KnightDisciple
2009-06-10, 02:22 PM
Ok, seriously folks. Take the tangent talk about ethics of guns and war and atom bomb yields somewhere else. This is a thread for fast gunmen and guns.

In the spirit of this: fastest shotgun shooter ever (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qY0ufo8W8DU). Well, maybe not "ever", but close. And that sucker's not even an auto, just semi-auto.

Edit: @Renegade Paladin: Ah. I'm not a sailor or sea-lover or any such, so I wasn't sure.

Renegade Paladin
2009-06-10, 02:31 PM
Ok, seriously folks. Take the tangent talk about ethics of guns and war and atom bomb yields somewhere else. This is a thread for fast gunmen and guns.

In the spirit of this: fastest shotgun shooter ever (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qY0ufo8W8DU). Well, maybe not "ever", but close. And that sucker's not even an auto, just semi-auto.

Edit: @Renegade Paladin: Ah. I'm not a sailor or sea-lover or any such, so I wasn't sure.
Speaking of shotguns, look up Sergeant Fred Lloyd, United States Army, who singlehandedly routed 30 German soldiers and retook a French village using only a Winchester Model 1897 trench gun on September 27, 1918, pumping and firing as he moved through the buildings. He collapsed of exhaustion after driving the Germans off. Rambo, eat your heart out.

mangosta71
2009-06-10, 02:35 PM
Back on topic...

300 shots per round is a lot. But it becomes significantly less when you recall that the first time he rolls a 1 it's over. At the very least, he'll lose the rest of his action, and depending on how malicious your DM is the gun could jam. Or explode.

Verruckt
2009-06-10, 03:02 PM
...Wow. That's very shiny.

Though isn't it bad luck to shoot seagulls or some such?

Curiously enough I was talking to a navy friend of mine a little while ago and he said that they do have a lot of dead fowel on deck on the Ticonderoga Class (better known as the Aegis) cruiser he was deployed on, but it has nothing to do with the CIWS guns, it's the radar.

The AN/SPY-1 system that makes up much of the protrusion from the bridge is insanely powerful, when they turn it on the operators have to define the size of object they want it to identify, because at default it will start picking up rain drops in the atmosphere and begin tracking them. It can concentrate all of its power into a one degree slice of its 360 degree sensing arc, but they avoid doing that because it would be bad for the health of anyone on deck. Seaguls will hang around on the domes and in front of the emmitter dishes, and will be dead in hours if the thing is operational. One of the least popular duties is dead bird disposal.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-06-10, 03:04 PM
The microwave was invented when someone noticed a melted Hershey's bar on a radar dish.

I can only imagine what the birds looked like on the inside.

13_CBS
2009-06-10, 03:11 PM
Curiously enough I was talking to a navy friend of mine a little while ago and he said that they do have a lot of dead fowel on deck on the Ticonderoga Class (better known as the Aegis) cruiser he was deployed on, but it has nothing to do with the CIWS guns, it's the radar.

The AN/SPY-1 system that makes up much of the protrusion from the bridge is insanely powerful, when they turn it on the operators have to define the size of object they want it to identify, because at default it will start picking up rain drops in the atmosphere and begin tracking them. It can concentrate all of its power into a one degree slice of its 360 degree sensing arc, but they avoid doing that because it would be bad for the health of anyone on deck. Seaguls will hang around on the domes and in front of the emmitter dishes, and will be dead in hours if the thing is operational. One of the least popular duties is dead bird disposal.

Screw lasers. The future of warfare will be LONG-WAVELENGTH EMISSIONS!1

1Well, not really, but we're all tired of lasers being the primary weapon of sci-fi fiction, right?

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-06-10, 03:14 PM
Screw lasers. The future of warfare will be LONG-WAVELENGTH EMISSIONS!1

1Well, not really, but we're all tired of lasers being the primary weapon of sci-fi fiction, right?

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y258/Thalantos/40kImperialGuard01.jpg

chiasaur11
2009-06-10, 03:43 PM
Never thought of it before, but...

The IG and X-Com have a lot in common, really. Laser weapons, high casualty rates, better guns only for power armored super soldiers, the only good Xeno is a dead xeno...

Tengu_temp
2009-06-10, 07:30 PM
Don't forget below-Stormtrooper level of shooting accuracy.

chiasaur11
2009-06-10, 07:38 PM
Don't forget below-Stormtrooper level of shooting accuracy.

With rare exceptions.

IE CIAPHAS CAIN HERO OF THE IMPERIUM and the best of the best X-Com vets. (Porting guys from the end of the game back to the start leads to headshotty goodness).

Not to mention the "Battlefield retirements"...

Yulian
2009-06-11, 12:08 AM
In the spirit of this: fastest shotgun shooter ever (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qY0ufo8W8DU). Well, maybe not "ever", but close. And that sucker's not even an auto, just semi-auto.


Semi auto shotgun?

Cheater. :)

Let's see him do that with lever-action or pump.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1BwUJ4--Qw&feature=PlayList&p=42C11AD2081EB865&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=7

Now that fellow can slap iron.


I'm pretty sure there would be a lot less victims from disease and famine if we would spend the money spent on weapon research and production to solve those problems.

Not really. Famine is almost purely political in this day and age. The Earth has a food surplus. Every year, tons of food rots away in warehouses with no one to eat it.

The real question is, "How do you get food to people living under a government that uses starvation as a weapon against its enemies or own people?"

The answer, unfortunately, involves violence, and thus, better weapons technology.

Metal Storm has the problems Dervag mentioned. This is why belt-fed machines guns still rule. So long as you wanna send them through the belt loading machine, you can add an "infinite" number of links, at least so far as your box can hold the belt.

That and it's a technological hobby like any other. It just involves using chemicals to propel small, metal objects at high speeds towards a target. People improve their hobbies as well as the practical uses of weapons.

I myself own a firearm that no military in the world is likely to ever issue as a general sidearm; a Taurus model 608, 8-round, .357 Magnum revolver.

http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/attachments/general-handgun/12983d1218867504-your-favorite-357mag-model-608-profile.jpg
http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/attachments/general-handgun/12984d1218867504-your-favorite-357mag-model-608-chamber.jpg

I find it to be quite aesthetically pleasing.

- Yulian

Verruckt
2009-06-11, 01:37 AM
I myself own a firearm that no military in the world is likely to ever issue as a general sidearm; a Taurus model 608, 8-round, .357 Magnum revolver.

http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/attachments/general-handgun/12983d1218867504-your-favorite-357mag-model-608-profile.jpg
http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/attachments/general-handgun/12984d1218867504-your-favorite-357mag-model-608-chamber.jpg

I find it to be quite aesthetically pleasing.

- Yulian

Aaah the Taurus. How's that working for you? I've been thinking about a Judge if only for the novelty of .410 an .45 long colt.

I think I have a motivator... here!
http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w22/Jerisalem/1216282121649.jpg
and another
http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w22/Jerisalem/1217844374854.jpg

Both contain language offensive (gods if I know why) to some. They come from /k/, whaddya expect?

Headless_Ninja
2009-06-13, 02:59 PM
Screw lasers. The future of warfare will be LONG-WAVELENGTH EMISSIONS!
Wouldn't that still be a laser, though? I thought a 'laser gun' woult typically just mean any weapon that works via electromagnetic radiation? Even modern lasers don't necessarily use light in the visible light. Of course, something like gamma rays would be far better than mocrowaves, but they'd both be lasers, I'd have thought...

Sorry for the horrendously OT post.

LurkerInPlayground
2009-06-14, 07:22 PM
Bob Munden is one of the fastest guns on earth, but man is inevitably superseded by machine, and there is a machine that makes Bob, or any other mere mortal gunslinger, look like a kid with a BB gun.

It weighs 281 kilos.
It is 6 meters long, including an ammo hopper roughly the same size as a Volkswagen.
From 7 barrels it fires at 3,900 rpm, or 390 rounds-per-round.
It has a maximum range 1,200 meters
It fires 30x173mm shells that are made of depleted uranium and on fire, every fourth round explodes.
Those shells are fired in short bursts in order to compensate for the insane rate of fire. A rate of fire so terrifying that even when mitigated through 7 barrels sustained fire for more than 2-3 seconds risks melting the gun.

Did I mention it can fly (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-VJ8JgwTnY)?

Stat that.
What's interesting isn't how good the gun is, but how good the person using the gun is.

That is, there is a creative intellect behind the weapon. That's the spectacle.

Frankly, seeing what some people are capable of in FPS games, it's not surprising that Bob Munden can do what he does.

Kris Strife
2009-06-14, 07:31 PM
The microwave was invented when someone noticed a melted Hershey's bar on a radar dish.

I can only imagine what the birds looked like on the inside.

Eh, the chocolate bar was in his pocket.

No, I don't think he had any kids. Why do you ask? :p

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-06-14, 08:14 PM
The shotgun shells are .410 caliber and are generally more useful for shooting snakes than people, iirc.

KnightDisciple
2009-06-14, 08:24 PM
The shotgun shells are .410 caliber and are generally more useful for shooting snakes than people, iirc.

It's the principle of the thing.