Re: Gauss Weapons

On 25-Apr-00 at 12:12, Brian Bell (bkb@beol.net) wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> [mailto:owner-gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU]On Behalf Of Thomas.Barclay
> Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2000 11:13
> To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> Subject: Gauss Weapons
> 
> 
> Hmmm.  Would think the difference in ammo weight (no wasted weight on
> chemical propellant and heavy brass casing) might well suggest one
reason.
> 

Wouldn't you expect to have lost the heavy brass case by the time
frame we are talking about.  You would either have caseless ammo
or a seperate propellant (maybe binary?) system.  The big advantage
of the gauss weapon is resupply.  If you can plug into any available
power source and recharge resupply is much easier.

> [Bri] Again True. However, against soft targets (ie. people), you may
want
> to trade impact for kinetic transfer.

I don't think this is really an issue with a high enough velocity.  What
are the words, hydrostatic shock?

> [Bri] The biggest disadvantage to a gauss weapon would be that it
should be
> more fragile than the chemical powered equivalent. The magnetic field
> generating/focusing elements would probably not take a lot of abuse
before
> loosing alignment. Also, it may be more susceptible to dirt and other
> contamination.

I would assume the focusing elements would be solid state.  In my 
experience the fewer moving parts you have the better off you are
as far as reliability.	I would definately count expanding gass
as a moving part seperate from the moving part which is the 
projectile.

You also have sound issues with the traditional design.

Roger