NationStates Jolt Archive

Probably not, but this new "Super Shotgun" is about to make a big noise in Bagdad.

http://strategypage.com/hotstuff/articles/dls20055271228.asp

Probably not, but this new "Super Shotgun" is about to make a big noise in Bagdad.http://strategypage.com/hotstuff/articles/dls20055271228.asp
Damn it. Now somebody will want to ban my 12ga because it has the potential to use explosive/AP ammunition...

Oh wait - they already want to ban it anyway.

The Wildlife Officers in Wyoming used to chase away Moose with a shell called a "shell-cracker" which lobbed a firecracker about 100 yds. Better explosives and more powder should be no problem.

Damn it. Now somebody will want to ban my 12ga because it has the potential to use explosive/AP ammunition...

Oh wait - they already want to ban it anyway.

The Wildlife Officers in Wyoming used to chase away Moose with a shell called a "shell-cracker" which lobbed a firecracker about 100 yds. Better explosives and more powder should be no problem.


I got a few of those-they have an M-80 firecracker in them-the add I read was to chase bear off.
They had another called "Dragon's Breath" that shot a stream of fire from the barrel-many feet long. I think it was corrosive.
I used to get Shomer Tec's catalog with many of these special loads- two balls connected by a cable, other rounds designed to remove door hinges. They arent available to the general public anymore.

I got a few of those-they have an M-80 firecracker in them-the add I read was to chase bear off.
They had another called "Dragon's Breath" that shot a stream of fire from the barrel-many feet long. I think it was corrosive.
I used to get Shomer Tec's catalog with many of these special loads- two balls connected by a cable, other rounds designed to remove door hinges. They arent available to the general public anymore.

Sure they are, just not in every state. Ironically, IL doesn't allow non-lethals to be sold to civilians.

I got a few of those-they have an M-80 firecracker in them-the add I read was to chase bear off.
They had another called "Dragon's Breath" that shot a stream of fire from the barrel-many feet long. I think it was corrosive.
I used to get Shomer Tec's catalog with many of these special loads- two balls connected by a cable, other rounds designed to remove door hinges. They arent available to the general public anymore.
"Dragon's Breath" is simply powdered magnesium and an igniter.

The primary effect of the DB round is of intense flare - causing night-blindness and IR Goggle disruption. It also works well as a bear repellant. However, IIRC the "flame-front" is fairly minimal and, unless there are accelerants around, has a hard time even igniting paper (not enough thermal mass from each flaming bit of magnesium).

Mother Fucker :mad:

Somebody made a single barrel version of my FADBA'GS A'12

This just pisses me off to no end. That weapon idea has been on my drawing board since 2003 and was just buying the machine tools to start making a prototype version. This pisses me off. This really pisses me off.

God damn piece of shit mother fuckers :mad:

Mother Fucker :mad:

Somebody made a single barrel version of my FADBA'GS A'12

This just pisses me off to no end. That weapon idea has been on my drawing board since 2003 and was just buying the machine tools to start making a prototype version. This pisses me off. This really pisses me off.

God damn piece of shit mother fuckers :mad:

You know Einstein worked at a patent agency.

You know Einstein worked at a patent agency.
And he stole everybody's ideas and called them his own. Is that what you believe I should do?

And he stole everybody's ideas and called them his own. Is that what you believe I should do?

No I just felt like making a family guy reference.

Well anyways I think I have a leak in my planning department. Time to go liquidate somebody. :mp5:

Don't the Koreans already have something like this? The USAS-12? Or is that something different?

The geneva convention says:

Rule 2: The use of expanding bullets or materials calculated to cause unnecessary suffering is prohibited.

An expanding bullet, upon impact, explodes within the body.

The article says:


the Marine Corps is testing a family of 12 gauge shells designed to deliver blast, fragmentation, and high-explosive armored piercing projectiles out to 200 meters. The high-explosive armor piercing projectile uses a shaped charge that has been demonstrated to put a 1 inch hole in quarter-inch steel plate. A total of 100 projectiles have been bought for testing as well as some quantity for "experimental use" in Iraq.


I suppose that if they explode before they enter your body, it's legal.

Anyway, the geneva convention is quaint.

The sooner the civilized world gets over it's pointless aversion to the controlled application of violence, the sooner peace will reign. Maybe.

Yepper, the expanding bullet is the Dum-Dum round. Expanding and exploding are not the same thing. Expanding bullets expand when they hit the flesh, becoming really big and tearing out large chunks of frequently vital parts of the anatomy, particularily bothersome because while they eventually kill you, it takes a while, often while you are in intense pain.

The geneva convention says:



The article says:



I suppose that if they explode before they enter your body, it's legal.

Anyway, the geneva convention is quaint.

The sooner the civilized world gets over it's pointless aversion to the controlled application of violence, the sooner peace will reign. Maybe.
Ever read the geneva conventions? They say NOTHING about expanding or exploding bullets.
* First Geneva Convention (1864): Treatment of battlefield casualties.
* Second Geneva Convention (1906): Extended the principles from the first convention to apply also to war at sea.
* Third Geneva Convention (1929, last revision 1949): Treatment of prisoners of war.
* Fourth Geneva Convention (1949): Treatment of civilians during wartime in enemy hands.
* Protocol I (1977): Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts
* Protocol II (1977): Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts

Don't beleive me? Read thm:
http://wikisource.org/wiki/First_Geneva_Convention
http://wikisource.org/wiki/Second_Geneva_Convention
http://wikisource.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention
http://wikisource.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention
http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/protocol1.htm
http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/protocol2.htm

Ever read the geneva conventions? They say NOTHING about expanding or exploding bullets.

Cool! Let's blow up some people!

Cool! Let's blow up some people!
Already workingo n it buddy. ;)

Looks good, should put the fear of Allah into the bastards.

Ever read the geneva conventions? They say NOTHING about expanding or exploding bullets.
* First Geneva Convention (1864): Treatment of battlefield casualties.
* Second Geneva Convention (1906): Extended the principles from the first convention to apply also to war at sea.
* Third Geneva Convention (1929, last revision 1949): Treatment of prisoners of war.
* Fourth Geneva Convention (1949): Treatment of civilians during wartime in enemy hands.
* Protocol I (1977): Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts
* Protocol II (1977): Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts

Don't beleive me? Read thm:
http://wikisource.org/wiki/First_Geneva_Convention
http://wikisource.org/wiki/Second_Geneva_Convention
http://wikisource.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention
http://wikisource.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention
http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/protocol1.htm
http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/protocol2.htm erg, the first outlawing comes from the hague Convention of 1899, and expanded upon in the Hague Convention of 1907?, the Hague and Geneva Conventions are frequently combined into a single group also known as the the "Customary Laws Of War". Techincally you are correct that The Hague Conventions are not part of the Geneva Conventions, but common usage frequently confuses the two.

More seriously, I typed "Geneva Convention expanding bullets" into Google and I got the quote I put in. That'll teach me to do research instead of making stuff up. I always thought that the expanding bullets thing was from an earlier convention. I'd look into it, but I'm going to have din-dins.

Edit: Thanks for clearing that up Squi! You're a pal.

In regards to the OP, it would be difficult for a shotgun to become the new infantry rifle at all. The new infantry weapon, maybe. (Pedantic, I know, but couldn't resist.)

Seriously, this won't replace the infantry rifle for a number of practical reasons, range and accuracy being the big ones. (Note that the article says "out to 200 meters. This is about half the effective range of an assault rifle.)

This will make a useful adition at the squad level, in certain circumstances (as the article mentions), such as urban settings. It won't be replacing the rifle.

On the question of explosive small arms munitions, they are outlawed under the following treaty.

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/1868b.htm

Declaration Renouncing the Use, in Time of War, of certain Explosive Projectiles, 18 Martens Nouveau Recueil (ser. 1) 474, 138 Consol. T.S. 297, entered into force November 29/December 11, 1868.

The Contracting Parties engage mutually to renounce, in case of war among themselves, the employment by their military or naval troops of any projectile of a weight below 400 grammes, which is either explosive or charged with fulminating or inflammable substances.

One might also note that the Treaty outlawing explosive bullets pre-dates that outlawlawing expanding bullets.

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/1899f.htm

Declaration (IV, 3) concerning Expanding Bullets, 26 Martens Nouveau Recueil (ser. 2) 998, 187 Consol. T.S. 459, entered into force Sept. 4, 1900.

The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions. The present Declaration is only binding for the Contracting Powers in the case of a war between two or more of them.

Not all of the Hague Conventions are in force with most nations. There are so many, and through history, so many have been abandoned.

It's nice to quote from a treaty from 1868, but it hardly matters.

As an example, the shell for the new Objective Individual Combat Weapon is a very small explosive.

We now use hollowpoint ammunition in sniper rifles (there's a JAG opinion on this - we chose the Sierra match-grade hollowpoint not because it causes more wounds (debatable) but because it's far more accurate than a regular full metal jacket bullet).

You need to be careful which old treaty you quote - a lot of them are no longer in force.

Well, from the sound of it this weapon is going to be quite useful, but I doubt it would replace assault rifles as a standard infantry primary weapon. Smoothbore guns are very versatile and pack plenty of power, but what they are lacking is long range accuracy. Even if this thing can deliver a round out to 200 meters, it cannot deliver it with the same accuracy as a rifle. And in modern warfare, for Western armies especially, accuracy means more than firepower. Plus more rifle rounds can be carried by a soldier than 12 gauge shells. After all, the 5.56 was introduced mostly for making the rifles controllable in burst mood (the M14, standard issue 7.62 rifle at the time, had an excessive muzzle climb when shooting bursts). In modern combat, given the high quality aiming devices, most soldiers don't use burst mood much.

(I've once read a report on Afghanistan where a journalist made an interesting observation: they could easily tell where the US soldiers were during the combat because Americans fired single shots only while the Afghans mostly fired bursts).

The question, though, is why the US is not considering a re-introduction of 7.62 NATO rifles as standard issue. If the power of the 5.56 round is found unsatisfactory (which I agree with, I've always regarded M16 as a worthless piece of plastic), why not return to the time proven, powerful, long-range and accurate round that does the trick reliably? There is plenty of already existing 7.62 weapon designs, perfected over time (the G3 series are STILL in use in many countries, the M14 has been impressively perfected since Vietnam and there's also an Israeli bullpup version of it that has awesome accuracy), and even some new ones worth noting (the FN SCAR series).

The OICW uses a smart explosive shell to make it accurate against individuals out to 1000 meters with little specialized training.

You look at the target through the scope. Start pressing the trigger. The scope lases the target, gets the range, measures the wind, sends the info to the shell, which now fires.

The shell is preprogrammed to burst once it reaches the vicinity of the target - either after striking the target, or reaching that distance. Fragments from the shell are designed to penetrate body armor. If you're within the burst radius, you're probably dead - and defninitely hit.

<snip>

Anyway, the geneva convention is quaint.

The sooner the civilized world gets over it's pointless aversion to the controlled application of violence, the sooner peace will reign. Maybe.
IIRC, you can't use a .50 caliber bullet on a human so the M-82A1A and such can only be used on a vehicle, but if the round goes through the vehicle and into someone you are fine (so long as you were aiming at the vehicle) it just can't go through someone and into the vehicle. Confused? I was.

IIRC, you can't use a .50 caliber bullet on a human so the M-82A1A and such can only be used on a vehicle, but if the round goes through the vehicle and into someone you are fine (so long as you were aiming at the vehicle) it just can't go through someone and into the vehicle. Confused? I was.

That's an urban myth spread throughout the Army by your ignorant NCOs and officers.

It's perfectly legal to use a 50 on anyone who is armed. Including the Raufoss HEI explosive round.

Probably not, but this new "Super Shotgun" is about to make a big noise in Bagdad.

http://strategypage.com/hotstuff/articles/dls20055271228.asp


wouldnt .50 cal guns be good enough?

That's an urban myth spread throughout the Army by your ignorant NCOs and officers.

It's perfectly legal to use a 50 on anyone who is armed. Including the Raufoss HEI explosive round.


ya i think most everyone in the canadian army is going to be carrying a .50 cal

ya i think most everyone in the canadian army is going to be carrying a .50 cal
The problem with a 50 (rifle or HMG) is the weight. The shotgun is much lighter, and can use other useful rounds.

I agree this will never replace the M-16, but it may replace the M-4 carbine in many applications. And they seem to be talking about one or two to a squad.

I've seen stuf on the USAS-12, it's essentialy an M-16 rechambered for 12ga, from what I've read. Trouble is it's too light and suffers from god-awful barrel climb.

That's an urban myth spread throughout the Army by your ignorant NCOs and officers.

It's perfectly legal to use a 50 on anyone who is armed. Including the Raufoss HEI explosive round.
I always thought it sounded daft. So I may now :sniper: with impunity. But only with a smilie because I live in Ireland. ;)

I might be being stupid, but how do you put a one inch hole in a quarter inch metal plate? Wouldn't the hole just mean no more plate?

I might be being stupid, but how do you put a one inch hole in a quarter inch metal plate? Wouldn't the hole just mean no more plate?

When they say one inch hole, they refer to the diameter of the hole.
When they say quarter inch metal plate, they refer to the thickness of the plate.

Two different measurements.

When they say one inch hole, they refer to the diameter of the hole.
When they say quarter inch metal plate, they refer to the thickness of the plate.

Two different measurements.
Ah. Err... I knew that, just testing you :p

Thanks, I probably should have figured that out...